Do you believe Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus Christ?? (1 Viewer)

[EpicFailGuy]

is mcflystargirl a troll?

 

[mcflystargirl]

is mcflystargirl a troll?

no I am not

 

[Iron]

I have faith in ongoing progress of the human race.

That faith is misplaced.

Idealizing technical progress, or contemplating the utopia of a return to humanity's original natural state, are two contrasting ways of detaching progress from its moral evaluation and hence from our responsibility.

The supremacy of technology tends to prevent people from recognising anything that cannot be explained in terms of matter alone. Yet everyone experiences the many immaterial and spiritual dimensions of life.

 

[BigBoyJames_]

lol imagine if the church had a little more influence in todays Australia? ffs, we would be no different from the sand niggers in the middle east. Just read these pathetic arguments, these people can not be reasoned with or debated with...they are just retarded. colossal fuckhead of the highest order.

 

[Cookie182]

lol imagine if the church had a little more influence in todays Australia? ffs, we would be no different from the sand niggers in the middle east. Just read these pathetic arguments, these people can not be reasoned with or debated with...they are just retarded. colossal fuckhead of the highest order.

Your correct.

There is nothing scarier then someone living with "absolute" ideals founded upon faith. I mean look at the "progress" of the first 15 centuries or so A.D.- absolute zilch under theocracies.

It is only liberal, secular movements which have delivered freedom, peace, love and rationale to an otherwise poisoned and doomed world. The nature of religion is that it is ultra-conservative: if we all lived under a universally governed theocracy, it would be nothing short of totalitarian. Human development would become stagnant- since religion arrogantly answers all the questions known to life (a priest is a phD scientist, economist, judge, medical doctor and prof. of ethics), no new knowledge would be sort. However, power and corruption would still thrive. Oppression would still be active- murder, torture, you name it- coupled with awful superstitions.

I think the most intelligent thing to do is look back to the middle ages when life was governed by the Church and ask yourself was it a place you would of like to live in. A filthy, sickening and ultimately cruel and superstitious society governed through the manipulation of many with the power of a few. It is also amazing to note that almost everyone DID believe in god then. They were Christians, yet life was worse. It is so funny how Christians talk about "sin" today, the evils of society, how we have rejected the good 'old days- we've simply moved forward and life is better then ever. It is nice being able to sleep at night without the fear of a demon being under your bed.

Basically, if you hate secular, liberal democracies and their values- your wanting to be a celestrial slave. It's your choice ultimately to do so, but I'll have no part. But hey, North Korea is only a 10 hr flight if your keen.

 

[Cookie182]

That faith is misplaced.

Idealizing technical progress, or contemplating the utopia of a return to humanity's original natural state, are two contrasting ways of detaching progress from its moral evaluation and hence from our responsibility.

The supremacy of technology tends to prevent people from recognising anything that cannot be explained in terms of matter alone. Yet everyone experiences the many immaterial and spiritual dimensions of life.

Science and technology has brought us into this forum today. It's allowed our loved ones who become sick to have the best life they can. Its educated us on our origins, on the composition of nature and the beauty of universe. Its brought a standard of living that bronze age men could never have dreamed of. Yet you spit in its face everytime you preach the "old word". Science had to push through the barriers of religion- its major oppressor to get even where it is today. I can only attempt to imagine what wonders we may of had now had the Church not delayed the process.

I can't stand conservatives who knock science- yet utilise it to fulfill their every need daily.

What would of amounted without such knowledge? You would have a world where people who really had cancer thought they were being "punished" by evil spirits, where women were born to serve their male oppressors, where critical thought and imagination are oppressed, where no new truths lie to be uncovered, where we crush and destroy our environment and slaughter other species along with each other in barbaric, primitive rituals...

 

[Iron]

You fail me Cookie. It is surprising that you cant distinguish our theological views from your scientific theories. We can live together quite well.

We have no interest in your phantom secular utopia. All we ask is that the progress you speak of is not detached from an evaluation of its morality. This ultimately leads to better developmental outcomes.

 

[Cookie182]

You give me no reason to believe that there are physical things which need be explained by anything other then the matter which composes it.

Morality is a terrible argument. As history has aptly demonstrated (our best source), the moral days are now and still lie ahead (as we become more rational and reject superstition). Sure science alone, for eg, neo-darwinian theory does not give us a moral framework, it simply takes us away from the delusion that we have a "greater purpose"- a plan, a moral pathway. Now that we are saved from such an illusion, we are free to subsequently evaluate new philosophies and work together in formulating the best way to live happily amongst each other. Sure, there will always be sociopaths/psychopaths who do "evil"- but that doesn't have a supernatural explanation. For a variety of biological and psychological reasons, this small minority of the species has failed to develop the rational, moral instincts which are inherent within all of us. For our safety we take them out of society and attempt rehabilitation, but the exact nature of crime/punishment will take us down another path.

The overall point is, we live in a far more happier and moral society then the filthy, outrageously violent and irrational distopia that religion provided for us throughout history. Religion is static, it is hostile and unforgiving and only acts as a horrid and superstitous constraint on the further evolution of man. I also do not see a problem with aiming for this "utopia" you speak of. We may not reach it (especially if religion sticks around), but its certainly better then the failed system you want to put on the table.

For eg- give me one example of a purely religious moral act that a non-believer could not do on his own? The 10 commandments (well i should say 5, as the first 5 are ego-pumping crap) are oldskool, inherent beliefs mankind has held for 1000's of years about how best to live among each other.

You honestly think Moses and his pose trecked up Mt Sinai only to get there and learn- "Oh we're not meant to kill each other or sleep with our friends wife"?

 

[Cookie182]

We have no interest in your phantom secular utopia.

And we have no interest in your vile delusion.

Hopefully it all withers away, otherwise I'm all for establishing a purely secular country which DOES discriminate against religion (I mean Saudi does it!)- no churches, religious schools, religious lobby groups of any kind. Private spiritual worship would be acceptable, however any one seeking establishment of organised religions within the public sphere would be kindly told to go overseas (unlike being killed under a religious system). Under this assumption, the rest of the world still offers plenty of religious opportunities (this country would not necessarily be Australia either btw). I think it sounds very fair.

Children would be educated in rational morality from very young, along with our best explanations of where man come from, on the nature of the universe and what we still need to learn. Family values, love for the fellow man and an adherence to seeking truth (through rational, evidenced based enquiry) would always be championed. We would still celebrate Christmas, but it wouldn't be different from what many Australians do now- a day of giving and sharing among family, with good food and vibes.

Of course, you have the choice whether or not to move here. If your not willing to be a rationalist, then your not welcome. I don't see the problem. Of course, everything else would be liberal- near free markets (so no it would not be communist), a haven for scientific research and development, compulsory philosophy classes would replace scripture in schooling, pro-choice, no death penalty (a restorative justice system), euthanasia, legalised soft drugs, gay marriage, freely atheist politicians etc etc

One nation under Man

 

[Iron]

...It would appear that your mental state is more fragile than what I first gave it credit for

The Church cant govern and it must not govern. All we seek to do is morally instruct individuals in how to best excercise their freedom in a complex universe which is so much more than matter. You however insist that it is nothing more than material and that to deny this is 'dangerous' and something to be stamped out. Who's the real pagan?

Your denial of all but the material world has failed historically and will always fail to produce good men. Your shallow, relativistic understanding of the universe makes everyone poorer and arrests true development

 

[Cookie182]

To future readers, would you prefer to live in the world I envisaged above or a celestrial dictatorship resembling the Middle Ages (as religion offered us nothing but opposition to science).

Oh Iron, your mental state sir is the joke of this forum.

I simply said on "physical" matters, that is how man came to be, the age of the earth and even the beginning of the universe, I have been given no reason to believe that a supernatural explanation is required.

This does not equal a society where philosophy is discouraged. Theology would be, simply because it differs from philosophy in that it discourages critical thought and strays from a system of order and consistency ie logic.

I think i have already made my position on morality very clear- religion offers men nothing morally. It is deontological, instills obedience and authority. Moral questions need context and consequences need to be carefully formulated. In my opinion "religious morality" differs little from that of Nazism. You rival up a group of people about chances of hope and beauty in an afterlife, tell them to blindly follow and not ask questions and give them fear of torture. Hitler did a similar thing- replace the supernatural with nationalism.

 

[Cookie182]

As Mr Hitchens said on a debate about morality and religion which I watched last night-

"If you have a theory which attempts to explain everything- it inadvertently explains nothing" (possible misquote, its from memory).

 

[Iron]

To future readers, would you prefer to live in the world I envisaged above or a celestrial dictatorship resembling the Middle Ages (as religion offered us nothing but opposition to science).

Oh Iron, your mental state sir is the joke of this forum.

I simply said on "physical" matters, that is how man came to be, the age of the earth and even the beginning of the universe, I have been given no reason to believe that a supernatural explanation is required.

This does not equal a society where philosophy is discouraged. Theology would be, simply because it differs from philosophy in that it discourages critical thought and strays from a system of order and consistency ie logic.

I think i have already made my position on morality very clear- religion offers men nothing morally. It is deontological, instills obedience and authority. Moral questions need context and consequences need to be carefully formulated. In my opinion little "religious morality" differs little from that of Nazism. You rival up a group of people about chances of hope and beauty in an afterlife, tell them to blindly follow and not ask questions and give them fear of torture. Hitler did a similar thing- replace the supernatural with nationalism.

Lol Cookie, the fact remains that we have never governed. We force no one to subscribe to our beliefs. What can possibly be wrong with this?

I know youre just winding me up (that's what makes you such a worthy opponent) but i'm not into it. In the very few areas that we have opposed valid science, we have apologised. Yes, we have made mistakes. Yes, we are human. The bottom line is that there is nothing inconsistent with scientific and spiritual truth; theyre just answering completely different questions.

We encourage all questions from genuine seekers, rather than grubby detractors like yourself. Youre free to reject us, mock us, torture and kill us. We dont mind because we're cool with our life.

 

[tommykins]

i've always had the question -

what if a person genuinely seeks but doesn't find ?

 

[Cookie182]

Your denial of all but the material world has failed historically and will always fail to produce good men. Your shallow, relativistic understanding of the universe makes everyone poorer and arrests true development

Source?

I mean, the opposite certainly seems true. Looking back through history at the enlightenment thinkers who brought us to the position of liberty and the general level of happiness we have in 1st world societies today, I would say they were quite good people. Alternatively, I struggle to really look beyond the evils commited under religious ruling- I mean if it was just few odd people, I'd look beyond, but hmm it ain't- and you don't even need "sources" to prove this one...(you have on many accounts admitted the attrocities of the church in the past)

Relativistic? I think pure moral relativism is disgusting- as it allows the brainwashed to continue preaching as "that's their perogative". I think a purely secular society strays from this quite a bit- given the attachments to reason/evidence as a fundamental principle, compassion and understanding (without violence) for the fellow man and their individuality (like sexuality etc)...

 

[Iron]

Essentially, cookie, youre an idiot. You have this religious zeal and faith in 'science', which merely answers 'how' questions, yet you oddly believe that this is adequate to answer the 'why' questions of philosophy and theology.

Youre clearly struggling to reconcile your state of sin with the Catholic upbringing that still rings in your ears. If you want me to lash out in order to vindicate your decision just a bit more, then I fear that you will fail this day

 

[Iron]

i've always had the question -

what if a person genuinely seeks but doesn't find ?

ahem

this would be impossible.
seek and you will find

 

[tommykins]

Essentially, cookie, youre an idiot. You have this religious zeal and faith in 'science', which merely answers 'how' questions, yet you oddly believe that this is adequate to answer the 'why' questions of philosophy and theology.

Youre clearly struggling to reconcile your state of sin with the Catholic upbringing that still rings in your ears. If you want me to lash out in order to vindicate your decision just a bit more, then I fear that you will fail this day

hahahhahah oh my god. i love you iron.

 

[Cookie182]

Lol Cookie, the fact remains that we have never governed. We force no one to subscribe to our beliefs. What can possibly be wrong with this?

I know youre just winding me up (that's what makes you such a worthy opponent) but i'm not into it. In the very few areas that we have opposed valid science, we have apologised. Yes, we have made mistakes. Yes, we are human. The bottom line is that there is nothing inconsistent with scientific and spiritual truth; theyre just answering completely different questions.

We encourage all questions from genuine seekers, rather than grubby detractors like yourself. Youre free to reject us, mock us, torture and kill us. We dont mind because we're cool with our life.

Yes you did!

The pope circa 13 th century was the most powerful man in Europe. It was heresy to go against the church and its teachings. Critical thought was squashed.

What is "spiritual"? If you want to write it off as your philosophy on life and morality, then as I outlined thats acceptable and healthy, but it isn't that in your case- its what you have preached much before as "ETERNAL TRUTH" bla bla

You invoke a supernatural cause to things which have not yet been proven to need one. This is a waste of time and unhealthy for a progressive and happy society- I see 0 benefits, other then conflict and superstition.

It is also very incompatible. At least some of the Prots admit their delusion and take the Bible for every word. You pick and choose and make anything hateful into a mere metaphor. IMO one little error in a "god inspired" book proves it is logically inconsistent and therefore not devine (I expect if a god exists his work should define perfection). Science has found those errors twenty times over.

Take Islam for instance. Most Muslims openly reject evolution- I would be surprised if it is taught at all throughout the middle east. There is almost a billion muslims in the world- thats a sixth of the population spitting in the face of hard evidence. Mose well deny gravity and H20 while your at it. The fact remains, the Koran has a lot to say about Allah as a creator god (although its all very wishy-washy and illogical)- accepting that we have primate ancestory and evolved over millions of years is saying the Koran is plain wrong- a crime punishable by death under Sharia.

Read this for interest- Muslim rejection of Darwin�s evolution and the failure of Islam

I see little compatability with two completely different world views. You either accept the evidence and rationality or you don't. You can have bs "faith" by tagging a god behind it all, but in the end why? At best that leads to deism, as any revealed religion is clearly wrong. God is not necessary.

You were an atheist back in the day Iron! I know deep down you have doubt. What happened? Get hit by a clever marketing scheme?

 

[tommykins]

tbh cookie - don't try anymore, he won't budge.

inb4 'NO IT IS U WHO WON'T BUDGE'