Re: How do you know "your" religion is the "correct" one?

[ClairvoyantCat]

 

The point someone made earlier about morality being human-produced is spot on.  Morality existed in the form of reciprocal altruism long before Judaeo-Christian religion came along, and exists in societies that J-C religion never touched.  If people need christian theology in order to live a moral life, then that is fair enough, but I can't help feeling that it would be more impressive to live a good life because it is logically the right thing to do rather than through fear of divine wrath, or the promise of Sky-Cake at the end.

I agree here.  Depending on your denomination, in any case, religion might be able to constitute a false morality, like the killer who is caught and acts a certain way to escape the death penalty.  But if your really doing an action out of morality your doing it out of a human sense of justice and fairness, not out of fear of anything divine. 

[ainamotore]

 
I agree here.  Depending on your denomination, in any case, religion might be able to constitute a false morality, like the killer who is caught and acts a certain way to escape the death penalty.  But if your really doing an action out of morality your doing it out of a human sense of justice and fairness, not out of fear of anything divine. 

Finally, some rationality has seeped into this thread. I love the dopey argument put forth by mystics that without religion there will be no morality. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact a BETTER morality will result from a code that is developed from, and in, the real world rather than the imaginary world. In the imaginary world, morality is arbitrary and subjective, and is subject to powerlusting humans seeking domination and dominion over each other. In the real world, the only one that actually exists, morality can be designed in consonance with our nature and in consonance with our requirements for living together sensibly and logically.

Atheistic morality is a MUCH HIGHER form of morality than any imaginary religious code could EVER be. It is based on reason and empirical observation, rather than fear and loathing.

[Adami]

Oh good xenu, my statement about morality was a joke. I'm agnostic, of course I think morality is man made.

[ainamotore]

Oh good xenu, my statement about morality was a joke. I'm agnostic, of course I think morality is man made.

There is no "I think" about it. It is a metaphysical certainty that it is man-made. The only question is whether it will be based on silly fear-based mysticism or on rational analysis.

We've tried Sharia Law and all its sundry and shoddy variants, let's move on to something better.

[hefdaddy42]

Well hell, where have you been all our lives?  We should just make you Grand High Poobah of the world.

[El JoNNo]

I'm being dethroned? 

[hefdaddy42]

I'm being dethroned? 

Sorry, man. 

[HarlequinForest]

 
To claim absolute truth in the lack of existence of god(s) is equally as irrational as to claim absolute truth in the existence.

Nonsense. I am not required to prove a negativity. I can postulate that there are men who are born with 10 eyes, then demand that you prove they do not exist? Absurd. I do not have to prove that there is no God. It's self-evident.

It's non-falsifiable; by definition, it can't be proven or known to be untrue, and to claim otherwise would be irrational.

[GuineaPig]

 
To claim absolute truth in the lack of existence of god(s) is equally as irrational as to claim absolute truth in the existence.

Nonsense. I am not required to prove a negativity. I can postulate that there are men who are born with 10 eyes, then demand that you prove they do not exist? Absurd. I do not have to prove that there is no God. It's self-evident.

It's non-falsifiable; by definition, it can't be proven or known to be untrue, and to claim otherwise would be irrational.

[Perpetual Change]

It is a metaphysical certainty that it is man-made.

No it isn't.

I do love the "ridiculous to prove a negative" part, though. So you can make all sorts of claims about other people's beliefs being false, but when they ask you for a defense you back-up and say that its "not fair" for you to take the scientific route and be forced to eliminate all other hypothesis first? Fine. But then you simply can't justify the "certain knowledge" attitude.

Once again, this is another one of your arguments that I've seen come straight from the mouth of Ayn Rand (who herself was just impolitely regurgitating her tragic mistranslations of stuff that people had already been saying for a hundred years at least) . It's time to give that psuedo-philosophical shock-artist a rest already and read some real thinking material.

[ainamotore]

It is a metaphysical certainty that it is man-made.

No it isn't.

I do love the "ridiculous to prove a negative" part, though. So you can make all sorts of claims about other people's beliefs being false, but when they ask you for a defense you back-up and say that its "not fair" for you to take the scientific route and be forced to eliminate all other hypothesis first? Fine. But then you simply can't justify the "certain knowledge" attitude.

Once again, this is another one of your arguments that I've seen come straight from the mouth of Ayn Rand (who herself was just impolitely regurgitating her tragic mistranslations of stuff that people had already been saying for a hundred years at least) . It's time to give that psuedo-philosophical shock-artist a rest already and read some real thinking material.

You are complicating something that is very simple. Here is the procedure: You claim the existence of an entity or phenomenon, then you prove it exists. You do not imagine an alternative to that which exists, declare it to be real, then demand that others disprove its existence.

To get away with this nonsense you need to invent another concept that is anti-real and anti-scientific and anti-Man. I am speaking of course of the terrible concept known as: faith. Faith is the dubious foundation upon which the whole silly concept of God is built (and I use that term very loosely in this context...).

Faith, of course, is the necessary pre-cursor that leads you to Sharia Law, the Crusades, or even just Eddie Long. It's a slippery slope, this "denying reality" thing...

[Perpetual Change]

To get away with this nonsense you need to invent another concept that is anti-real and anti-scientific and anti-Man. I am speaking of course of the terrible concept known as: faith. Faith is the dubious foundation upon which the whole silly concept of God is built (and I use that term very loosely in this context...).

Faith, of course, is the necessary pre-cursor that leads you to Sharia Law, the Crusades, or even just Eddie Long. It's a slippery slope, this "denying reality" thing...

You're not talking about people who have faith. Faith implies a shred of reason and optimism. Faith implies suggesting answers where there are no clear ones. You, on the other hand, are talking about delusional psychopaths-- people who claim to KNOW, as you claim to know. They are more dangerous than most people of faith.

"Faith" isn't anti-man or anti-scientic or anti-real just because you can point out some examples where evil people who capitalized on others' willingness to believe in things without thinking twice.