| Oct 15 @ 12:05 PM |
Religious cop-outs and blame games
|
|
kjac
Posts: 8,163
|
One of the things that genuinely bothers me in my country are all the religious cop-outs.
Blaming an omnipotent force or lack thereof for the actions of real people is something I could never understand. Why the lack of accountability? Is it fear that causes this? Is it mental illness? Or is it simply a refusal to admit that a person adapts their beliefs to suit their behavior, and not the other way around?
I see this a lot lately, with religious terrorism and people blaming lack of this force for what they don't like about my country. People committing inhumane acts of torture and destruction then giving their force the credit. Or watching horrible crimes being committed then using them to further their own agenda by blaming a lack of their own version of this force.
Am I looking at this too hard, and thinking this problem is bigger than it really is? Or has the lack of actual accountability reached epic proportions.
|
|
  |
|
| Oct 15 @ 12:40 PM |
Religious cop-outs and blame games |
|
southernlass
Posts: 2,211
|
Where there is no God, no real morality, no standards of clear cut "right" and "wrong," there is exactly what we have now. When people allow themselves to please themselves first, to be all about "me" first, to worship themselves and whatever they determine to create to worship, instead of worshipping God, the lines become blurred. Morality ceases to be clear.
Rebellion only brings more of the same.
We were initially taught the truth, most of us. We may call Him by different names, but internally we are all born with the conception of God. We've strayed from what is within us and have traded this for lies, for the politically correct, for the twisted versions of truth. The state that our country is in now is the fruit of this rebellion, yet I believe there is still time to change things if we will only awaken from our slumber and face the truth.
|
| |
|
| Oct 15 @ 1:50 PM |
Religious cop-outs and blame games
|
|
oct_cat
Posts: 1,374
|
kjac, I think it all comes down to people not being accountable for themselves.
How many times do you see or hear of tragic events, & the superior being is to blame; He's mad at people, its the end of the world.
Yet when there is good news broadcast on tv, radio & newspapers, it's due to humans; the president, corporation owners, all the way down to us little people.
How many people look at the world, see only the negative & pray for change.
How many people look at the world, see the positive and/or potential for positive & say "Thank you for this day, for another chance at life?"
Dismalness & depression begets dismalness & depression; positive attitude & thankfulness begets positiveness & thankfulness.
I am grateful for my life, what I do with it is all up to me, no other being.
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 15 @ 2:18 PM |
Religious cop-outs and blame games |
|
alivenwell351
Posts: 3,005
|
Where there is no God, no real morality, no standards of clear cut "right" and "wrong," there is exactly what we have now.
Kindly provide any CREDIBLE evidence linking belief in any god, let alone the christian one, equates to higher morals and better standard of "clear cut" right and wrong.
There's evidence galore in these R&S threads that there's certainly no correlation between claiming to be a believer and being moral or knowing right from wrong, and more importantly, living them.
Blaming an omnipotent force or lack thereof for the actions of real people is something I could never understand.
"It's god's will" or "it's a lack of god in your/my/their life" makes it an easy cop out to blame things on an imaginary omni powerful omni present whatever it's supposed to be rather than taking responsibility for one's own actions and one's own situations.
Am I looking at this too hard, and thinking this problem is bigger than it really is?
Maybe.....
Any fringies of anything are going to have an ax to grind and as such, sometimes go to extremes to grind it. And it's a given that anytime someone farts crossways it's supposedly newsworthy and is all over the thousands of news outlets and the internet. I think if you have to blame what seems to be a deterioration of things on anything, you can blame a lot of it on information overload.
The vast majority is normal everyday folks just trying to get by and doing the best they can...something I really don't think has changed a whole lot over time. I just think these days maybe we hear a lot more about the bad & evil, which I still believe is mostly the fringe (as it's always been), than we used to.
|
| |
|
| Oct 15 @ 3:21 PM |
Religious cop-outs and blame games
|
|
Jankia
Posts: 11,881
|
Blaming an omnipotent force or lack thereof for the actions of real people is something I could never understand. Why the lack of accountability? Is it fear that causes this? Is it mental illness? Or is it simply a refusal to admit that a person adapts their beliefs to suit their behavior, and not the other way around?
Look at the many comments in this forum...including your own, that blame religious atrocities in the past as the reason they dont follow that religion today.
You understand them because you focus on the negatives and ignore the positives.
Is it fear or mental illness that causes that or is it your refusal to admit the positive for lack of accountability in being a part of it? 
People debate both the power of religion over science and that of science over religion but both are meaningless to debate if one would only give credence to both...because if what creates the bothersome wrong you see is the refusal to understand it...
“Fix the problem, not the blame.” Catherine Pulsifer
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 15 @ 7:31 PM |
Religious cop-outs and blame games |
|
alivenwell351
Posts: 3,005
|
People debate both the power of religion over science and that of science over religion but both are meaningless to debate if one would only give credence to both...because if what creates the bothersome wrong you see is the refusal to understand it...
Any attempt to try to give science and religion the same legitimacy is completely bogus. Or wishful thinking. It's apples and oranges. They couldn't be more different.
Science deserves credence because scientific conclusions can & do change as new evidence dictates they should. Religion deserves no credence because there is no new verifiable evidence of any legitimacy to it. The only "evidence" religion has going for it is the same "evidence" that's existed from the beginning...the bible...and as bothersome as it might be for the religious to accept, it carries no credence to many as many believe it's long been sufficiently debunked. Something YOU obviously refuse to understand.
|
| |
|
| Oct 15 @ 8:51 PM |
Religious cop-outs and blame games
|
|
LanceVarden7
Posts: 1,092
|
Any attempt to try to give science and religion the same legitimacy is completely bogus. Or wishful thinking. It's apples and oranges. They couldn't be more different. The difference between science and superstition is knowledge and understanding. In some parts of the world, a sulphur match was magic. If we don't understand how a thing can happen, it doesn't mean that it can't happen. Likewise, if we didn't see it happen, doesn't mean that it didn't.
That is the sort of subjective reasoning that caused people to think that the world was flat and that the Earth was the center of the universe.
I can undertand the viewpoint of a Christain, the belief in something not seen. I can also understand the viewpoint of an agnostic, not knowing but being open to the possibility. I can't undertand the reasoning of an athiest. You can't prove a negative. Sasquatch may not exists, but there is no means to prove it. To say he can't exist just because you've never seen one is silly.
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 15 @ 9:14 PM |
Religious cop-outs and blame games |
|
iam01
Posts: 6,260
|
I can undertand the viewpoint of a Christain, the belief in something not seen. I can also understand the viewpoint of an agnostic, not knowing but being open to the possibility. I can't undertand the reasoning of an athiest. You can't prove a negative. Sasquatch may not exists, but there is no means to prove it. To say he can't exist just because you've never seen one is silly.
The thing is a Christian is also an atheist for all gods except the one or the three they want to believe in. The agnostic is indifferent for lack of evidence of any god existing. The atheist is no different in their rejection of gods than a Christian who rejects all gods except for their own. The Christian is believing in things by tradition, without evidence, by faith, without proof yet has claims of certainty. The thinking Christian will question the validity of such beliefs from time to time making themselves agnostic.
You can not prove a negative which means you can not prove Zeus was not the real god, that Chaos was his father and humanity in their inequity turned away from them. Does that mean the Greek Gods were therefore real but no one believes in them anymore? Does that make sense? You can not prove Leprechauns don't exist but argue with a drunk Irishman and you'll get into a bar brawl. You can not prove a person can not be in two places at the same time, a doppelganger. The application of negative logic is absurd. There is no reason to believe in a thing without evidence just as there no reason to believe in a thing that can not disprove. You simply don't disprove what has never been proven. If someone insists pink elephants exist or that Elvis lives you will think they are crazy or hallucinating. Why is that so different than someone saying Jesus or Lord Krishna came to visit them?
|
| |
|
| Oct 15 @ 9:36 PM |
Religious cop-outs and blame games
|
|
LanceVarden7
Posts: 1,092
|
The thing is a Christian is also an atheist for all gods except the one or the three they want to believe in. For many that is true. The bible says "thou shalt have no other Gods before me" but who is "me"? That is what the "Jesus is a Space Alien" thread was getting at. The bible says "my children know my voice" does that mean that a common thread of teaching love and kindness, and aspiring to be a better person runs through all of them. If the incarnate Yeahsua that appeared as one particular human in one particular era on one particular planet, what about the souls that had no access to him? Are they sol?
The atheist is no different in their rejection of gods than a Christian who rejects all gods except for their own. Got to disagree on that one. Some people interpret that is a pre-requisite to their faith, mostly because that is what other people have told them. I can understand a "I beleive in 'A' so I can't beleive in 'B'" mentality of a "I beleive in 'B' so I can't beleive in 'A'" (I may not agree, but I can see where they are coming from) but an athiest basic says they don't beleive because it has not been prove to them. That is like believing the world is flat because it hasn't been disproven.
The Christian is believing in things by tradition, without evidence, by faith, without proof yet has claims of certainty. True. Quite true. I think that is a characteristic of human nature and not just Christian nature. Many people have the "get on up" mentality. Many Christians use religion as means appease that tendency. That is a blashphemy. God is not a tool for people to use to pump up their own pride and self indulgence. That was the whole point to Yeashua being born in a manger, and getting crucified while the guards drew lots for his robe. It is humilty and being understated. He had noe million dollar studio and $1,000 dollar suits. He had not worldwide network. Yet his message endures, whereas others have died away.
The thinking Christian will question the validity of such beliefs from time to time making themselves agnostic. True. I tend that to think that any Christian who says they have never had a moment of doubt is blowing smoke.
You can not prove a negative which means you can not prove Zeus was not the real god, that Chaos was his father and humanity in their inequity turned away from them. Correct
Does that mean the Greek Gods were therefore real but no one believes in them anymore? Not necessarily. If they are real, though, no one seems to believe in them anymore.
You can not prove Leprechauns don't exist but argue with an drunk Irishman and you'll get into a bar brawl. You can not prove a person can not be in two places at the same time, a doppelganger. That's fair.
If someone insists pink elephants exist or that Elvis lives you will think they are crazy or hallucinating. Why is that so different? Acutally it's not. If someone says they saw a pink elephant, I have no belief that they exist and figure they are probably lying. I DO beleive that Yeashua and God exist, I don't believe in most of the people that claim to have seen them.
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 15 @ 9:40 PM |
Religious cop-outs and blame games |
|
Jankia
Posts: 11,881
|
there is no new verifiable evidence of any legitimacy to it. 
There being no new verifiable evidence that Benjamin Franklin said..."Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." ...doesnt mean he never said it.
Unless of course one is a fool.
Something YOU obviously refuse to understand Evidently the words of Pulsifer are proven true again for yet another person with a bothersome wrong he created for himself in his refusal to understand what hes even talking about.
Fix the problem, not the blame.
Any attempt to try to give science and religion the same legitimacy is completely bogus. Or wishful thinking. It's apples and oranges. They couldn't be more different. One needs to set aside their fanciful speculation for a minute and face the facts. Both are collections of beliefs.
"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—* physicist H. S. Lipson
"After religious teachers accomplish the refining process indicated they will surely recognize with joy that true religion has been ennobled and made more profound by scientific knowledge. The situation maybe expressed by an image: Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind" Albert Einstein
|
| |
|
| Oct 15 @ 10:06 PM |
Religious cop-outs and blame games
|
|
iam01
Posts: 6,260
|
but an athiest basic says they don't beleive because it has not been prove to them. That is like believing the world is flat because it hasn't been disproven. For a very large chunk of the world that was true when people believed the world was flat and they weren't atheists either. A few intrepid sailors empirically proved the earth was round.
True. Quite true. I think that is a characteristic of human nature and not just Christian nature. Many people have the "get on up" mentality. Many Christians use religion as means appease that tendency. Good understanding of psychology.
That is a blashphemy. Well, I don't know about that. Its just ego and hubris. OK, its blasphemy...
God is not a tool for people to use to pump up their own pride and self indulgence. Maybe we should send you into a time machine and you can tell that to the early church fathers who invented this religion. Hopefully you won't be put into a dungeon or burned alive. They burned Giordano Bruno for his heretical thoughts so its a risk.
True. I tend that to think that any Christian who says they have never had a moment of doubt is blowing smoke. Then you better put on your gas mask around here. 
Not necessarily. If they are real, though, no one seems to believe in them anymore. That's the point. So who's right about the right god to worship?
That's fair. That's good because gold is with over $1000 oz now. Catch a Leprechaun while you can.
[Edited on 10/15/2009 10:11 PM]
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 15 @ 10:08 PM |
Religious cop-outs and blame games |
|
BandTMom
Posts: 38,030
|
"Religion" has nothing to do with "morality".
|
| |
|
| Oct 15 @ 10:26 PM |
Religious cop-outs and blame games
|
|
Jankia
Posts: 11,881
|
"Religion" has nothing to do with "morality". Most likely it doesnt when one isnt aware of the relationship between religion and morality.
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 15 @ 10:38 PM |
Religious cop-outs and blame games |
|
BandTMom
Posts: 38,030
|
Morality is what society teaches us is "moral". It has nothing to do with the religion a person may or may not follow.
|
| |
|
| Oct 15 @ 10:50 PM |
Religious cop-outs and blame games
|
|
alivenwell351
Posts: 3,005
|
One needs to set aside their fanciful speculation for a minute and face the facts. Both are collections of beliefs.
One starts out with a theory or an idea, and through a process of experimentation and adjustment, comes to an ultimate proven conclusion...
The other starts with an unproven, etched in stone, unchangeable conclusion and manipulates, distorts and invents "evidence" to pass it off as fact...
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 15 @ 10:56 PM |
Religious cop-outs and blame games |
|
Jankia
Posts: 11,881
|
If you say so BandTMom..I'll stick with the more popular version than yours... Morality is a complex of principles based on cultural, religious, and philosophical concepts and beliefs, by which an individual determines whether his or her actions are right or wrong
aliven-One starts out with a theory or an idea, and through a process of experimentation and adjustment, comes to an ultimate proven conclusion...
The other starts with an unproven, etched in stone, unchangeable conclusion and manipulates, distorts and invents "evidence" to pass it off as fact...
OK...isnt this where you supply your new verifiable evidence of any legitimacy to your unfounded claim?
Please include any information that debunks creation through those ultimate proven conclusions.Throw in the ultimate proven conclusion that man evolved from apes while your at it.I could bring up alot more but just how much time do you want to waste looking?
[Edited on 10/15/2009 11:07 PM]
|
| |
|
| Oct 15 @ 11:16 PM |
Religious cop-outs and blame games
|
|
Angel54214
Posts: 18,167
|
I always wondered why Scientists commit suicide...
http://listverse.com/2007/10/07/top-10-scientists-who-committed-suicide/
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 16 @ 1:29 AM |
Religious cop-outs and blame games |
|
pastordon
Posts: 624
|
One starts out with a theory or an idea, and through a process of experimentation and adjustment, comes to an ultimate proven conclusion...
You mean, "starts out with a scientifically disproven idea--spontaneous generation--then claims, without any proof, that random DNA mutations will provide enough good mutations to evolve a whole phylogenetic tree...while simultaneously admitting such mutations are sketchy at best. I've spent most of today just reading evolutionist claims and explanations for life here on earth. And, I'm amazed how they all admit that random DNA mutations have a very low probability of being positive or beneficial; in fact, the few examples of such mutations they offer don't even come close to evolving an organism beyond its species--even if you accumulate the mutations. In other words, evolutionists have not even come close to proving that random DNA mutations, naturally selected, is a sufficient evolving mechanism. Instead, they just hope against hope that it is--which sounds more like a religion than a science.
So, Alive if you believe evolution is a "proven conclusion," you are banking on an illusion. For your own sake, read your own evolutionist material (talkorigins is a good place to start)--but really LISTEN to what they are saying. And be asking yourself as you read, "What REAL evidence are they giving to support evolution--macroevolution?" In fact, talkorigins even scoffs at the idea of having to present concrete evidence to support their claims for macroevolution (the kind of evolution needed to "grow" the evolutionary tree). Though, their attitude is really no surprise--they don't have anything concrete to offer, and they know it.
But, I'm curious. What evidence do you have in mind, when you say, "proven"?
|
| |
|
| Oct 16 @ 9:12 AM |
Religious cop-outs and blame games
|
|
yashaenka
Posts: 8,207
|
Morality Law or a legal system is distinguished from morality or a moral system by having explicit written rules, penalties, and officials who interpret the laws and apply the penalties. Although there is often considerable overlap in the conduct governed by morality and that governed by law, laws are often evaluated on moral grounds. Moral criticism is often used to support a change in the law. Some have even maintained that the interpretation of law must make use of morality (Dworkin).
Religion differs from morality or a moral system in that it includes stories, usually about supernatural beings, that are used to explain or justify the behavior that it prohibits or requires. There is often a considerable overlap in the conduct prohibited or required by religion and that prohibited or required by morality, but religions always prohibit or require more than is prohibited or required by guides to behavior that are explicitly labeled as moral guides. Sometimes morality is regarded as the code of conduct that is put forward by religion, but even when this is not the case, morality is thought by many to need some religious justification. However, just as with law, some religious practices and precepts are criticized on moral grounds, e.g., discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation. Morality is only a guide to conduct, whereas religion is always more than this. Morality
Simply put, Morality is a Societal Code of Conduct!
|
|
| |
|
| Oct 16 @ 9:43 AM |
Religious cop-outs and blame games |
|
LanceVarden7
Posts: 1,092
|
There being no new verifiable evidence that Benjamin Franklin said..."Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." ...doesnt mean he never said it. Unless of course one is a fool.  Here's the thing that really bugs me. If you heap disrespect on other folks, you can't whine when a little comes back your way.
In first grade, there was a sand pit at the bottom of the fire escape, and we would play "king of the mountain" and push each other of the sidewalk into the pit. If you got pushed in, you got out and got back into the game.
There was one kid named "Kit" (this is a true story) If you started to push him in, he would object saying he had his good clothes on. Now his clothes weren't really nicer than anyone else's. He just didn't want to be pushed in. As soon as you started to back off him, he would try to push you in the pit.
This strategy didn't work long and pretty soon he would get pushed in. When he did, he would start fussing and crying and run complain to the teacher.
For my money, if you are going to get in the ring and throw a few blows, don't whine when a couple come back your way.
|
| |
|
|
|
|