Since some form of voodoo seems to be afoot with regard to my posts, as of late....
Let's try this again.
What -belief- is taken except by faith?
Why is a belief in a religious pretense treated differently than the belief in any given moral pretense? What evidence is there to support one's choice in humanist or atheist ethical standpoints?
Part of the problem with this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what religion is.
A religion has competed against other philosophical ideas and understandings... and earned dominance in a region for one or more reasons.
You must be registered for see links
Make of that what you will. To argue that people accept religion without evidence is just as ridiculous as to say that they reject religion without cause. While religions are cultural - I've taken the time to study them, and have found a number of remarkably similar themes and contexts contained within the majority of religions.
Religions exist as both a record of history, an explanation of both earthly and human origins (many of them interestingly focused on celestial phenomena), as well as lessons regarding the structuring of human society. They are not simply claims of spaghetti monsters and while they may argue the case for a spaghetti monster, the reason people believe in them is for the practical yields in life lessons and, occasionally, for the works of prophetic wisdom.
Does the fact that the spin state of a photon is a property decided spontaneously upon measurement of said spin state destroy the notion of objective reality?
Get back to me once you have learned of the appropriate sections of physics that ends up dealing as much with philosophy as it does with math (since interpreting the results of experiments in QM is quite an art in and of itself).
Actually, those are things that are a coincidence - a fluke in human history brought about by the plagues. The plagues in Europe are directly responsible for a collapse of the caste systems and forced trade knowledge outside of castes (which exist naturally in virtually every other part of the world). The West arose from the shadows of Rome with innovations like the printing press and the plagues meant the human being of society had to be self-sufficient and diversified in his (and her) talents. This gave rise to the western concepts of individualism, egalitarianism, and enlightenment.
Also, there is a reason why Christendom gravitated toward the enlightenment and inherited many of the lost technologies/capabilities of Rome. Contrary to fanciful depictions of history, the religion of Christianity was directly responsible for promoting an increase in reading. The protestant reformation was driven by the expansion of the printing press and the Bible was one of the key driving books that made publishing a practical economic endeavor.
The roots of enlightenment - the idea that mankind is supposed to explore and understand the universe around them is very much a value that is instilled in a culture by religion.
Argument ad absurdem.
Religion teaches that there are consequences for behavior that is unethical - consequences that are unpleasant.
Further - by what objective measure do you consider this "warped?"
How is it any different than stimulus response? How warped the world must be for subjecting you to pain when you set your hand on a hot plate - making you fear the imposing burn of a consequence you can nigh escape....
Stop.
What holy books?
There are scriptures authored by people. Some of whom are believed to be prophets, others of whom are believed to have been inspired by or witness to divine events.
You would be referring to Deuteronomy 17:
You must be registered for see links
" 2 If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the Lord gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the Lord your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars in the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death. 6 On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. 7 The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting that person to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you. "
Deuteronomy is referring to the establishment of the state of Israel - the state of Israel that was destroyed as prophesied by Isaiah. It is an interesting point - given:
" 8 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” "
That is from John 8 - the New Testament that reveres the "Jesus" in question.
There are numerous discussions about this particular scene as described. It's not part of the original gospel of John, but it is a widely documented story that was in circulation at the time of its writing - so while it may not be a scene that can be given accurate scholarly credits, it is generally understood to have been an event that occurred and fit within the context of Jesus' teachings.
So - the man who Christians revere as the savior of mankind already effectively rendered the law moot.
As a discussion of it describes:
You must be registered for see links
This story raises very significant pastoral issues. The first issue is the nature of the commandments of Scripture. We see Jesus upholding the law's teaching that adultery is sin while also setting aside the specific regulations concerning the community's enforcement of that law. The implication is that the law contains revelation of right and wrong, which is true throughout history, as well as commandments for embodying that revelation in the community of God's people, which are not true for all times and places. To understand this distinction we must understand that the law as revelation of right and wrong is not an arbitrary set of rules that God made up to test our obedience. Rather, the law is the transposition into human society of patterns of relationship that reflect God's own character. Adultery is wrong because it violates relationships of faithfulness, and such violation is wrong, ultimately, because God himself is characterized by faithfulness. The morality of Scripture is a pattern of life that reflects God's own life. This aspect of the law is unchanging, but the law's prescription for how the community is to embody and enforce the revealed vision of relationships may vary.
Surely, you can do better than this.
" 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
19 “Anyone who has killed someone or touched someone who was killed must stay outside the camp seven days. On the third and seventh days you must purify yourselves and your captives. 20 Purify every garment as well as everything made of leather, goat hair or wood.”
21 Then Eleazar the priest said to the soldiers who had gone into battle, “This is what is required by the law that the Lord gave Moses: 22 Gold, silver, bronze, iron, tin, lead 23 and anything else that can withstand fire must be put through the fire, and then it will be clean. But it must also be purified with the water of cleansing. And whatever cannot withstand fire must be put through that water. 24 On the seventh day wash your clothes and you will be clean. Then you may come into the camp.” "
Quite obviously, there were concerns about a plague, and part of the argument for war, here, stems from a plague - presumably an STD. The idea, here, is that women who can carry this disease should be killed, and the women remaining are to be taken as plunder, as well.
Now - it is here I have to ask you: "Why do you care?"
Scientifically, a population that can destroy competition and out-breed its competitors succeeds. I don't need faith to support this assertion. It is by virtue of the records the Hebrews took down that we even know about this other culture that existed. It was literally destroyed and eroded by the sands of time. Case in point. The highest performing ideology, objectively, was selected.
And you have the audacity to suggest that their behavior was wrong?
Upon what grounds? What evidence do you have that what they did was wrong?
Where would those women have gone after their culture was destroyed? How would the Hebrews have fared if they did not eliminate the source of a plague afflicting them?
I can see you there, stamping your foot, and saying: "But it's wrooo~oong!"
To which I simply say: "Prove it."
You don't even understand the faith that is at play in your life.
Paul's ideas are crucial to understanding how the early Church developed and how the Church evolved over time. Few people who have actually studied the scripture give much credence to Paul's assertion that Jesus was necessary as a sacrificial penance.
Though this was a very easy way to 'explain' Jesus at the time. Many religions made use of animal sacrifices - by making the simple analogy that God essentially gave himself as a sacrifice before humanity, it made it a glaring contrast to religions where sacrifices of one's own wealth were made to appease God(s).
The reality is that Paul's message and methods are what resonated with populations outside of Judea and were, ultimately, the most successful at spreading the notion of Jesus as a man of divine wisdom and impact.
Once again - you argue that this is somehow wrong... upon what grounds? Prove that it is wrong to do this.
That's cool. I'm Protestant. The Pope can talk all he wants to. He's yet to give me much scriptural evidence for his existence and relevance.
But, see... he does have power and he does have influence. The Catholic Church does, indeed, command power over those willing to align with it. See my posts from before... what is wrong with this? The ideology that can defeat opposition and gain superior numbers is the superior ideology and has the most empirical evidence to support it as being the correct ideology - that which is most functional.
On the other hand, because I have faith in a designed purpose to the world and in the ability of various scriptures and religions to be capable of revealing what this purpose is... something like the papacy stands out as a trifling affair of human ego that will ultimately end up slapped to the ground like a tower of babel. Thus, I don't see much point in revering it's power, as its power is fleeting and will ultimately be nothing.
I fail to understand the point, much less the relevance.
Nowhere in there is there a condemnation of regarding the mechanics of the world for what they obviously are. The context of many of those verses is with regard to the existence of God or the fulfillment of a promise.
You must be registered for see links
Examples given in Hebrews 11 are Noah, Abraham, Moses - all people who took giant leaps of faith that they were doing what was right for their families or for their tribes. Those stand, the author argues, as evidence that God fulfills his promises, but that these great acts were taken upon faith - that the fulfillment of the promise would come after the life and passing of the people who first made that leap of faith.
It is a philosophical lesson.
There is a difference between faith and deliberate ignorance. To deny the theories underpinning Chemistry on the basis of some variety of "Faith" would be ridiculous, true - but that is not the variety of faith that is being discussed, here.
Someone who has yielded a critical mind to become a complacent one has no real faith.
To have faith means that you must continue to believe in something despite the fact that it can't be proven. Note that this is not the same as believing in something that has been experimentally tested and rendered false. It doesn't take faith to believe that a ball will fall down after it has been thrown into the air. The law of gravity is remarkably consistent and fair in its upholding of equal opportunity (unless we are dealing with galaxies... then we need to break the universe several times over to make known laws of gravitation work to explain what is observed... speaking of Faith... ever hear of Dark Matter? ... That's a fanciful thing that any well educated man insists must exist... but all experiments performed to find it have turned up nothing... yet those performed to determine its distribution within a galaxy show it must be spherical in nature and very evenly distributed.... which basically means the laws of gravity as we understand them don't apply to galaxies... but give the religion of science a few maoist revolutions, and I'm sure they'll eventually get it figured out).
If something is a fact, or perceived as a fact, then it really isn't faith upon which one operates - it is simply a conditioned response.
True faith can only be brought about by the understanding of the act of faith. Anyone would jump out onto a railed walkway they can see to cross a ravine. That doesn't take any faith. A leap of faith can only be performed when one understands that there is no guarantee of not falling - that failure is a possibility - that you may just be wrong about being able to make it across.
Red Herring.
Also, not sure how this is any different than any other point you attempt to make.
It's a red herring, but it is also not true.
Homosexuals have far higher rates of domestic violence as well as a much higher rate of engaging in pedophilia. This is likely because, among homosexuals, as many as 50% are known to have been victims of sexual abuse by a family member and it is well documented in psychology that those who are abused as children often end up repeating that offense against their own children.
Also, let's consider the fact that women cannot produce children with women and men cannot produce children with men. A society that can beat out competitors for resources and produce the most numerous and prosperous of citizens is, objectively, the superior society with the superior ideology. Why would a society aiming to be the most proper society offer much leeway in the case of homosexual behavior?
If you are going to argue that economic and numerical superiority is not the relevant metric of a society's propriety - then dare I ask you to prove that anything else is a superior metric. If you can only give evidence to suggest it is an equally valid metric - then I ask from where you derive your own ideas.... could it be culture? Faith?
I've yet to see any evidence that you're somehow free from faith.
Fact of the matter is that the world was doing just fine until Stalin/Lenin, Mao, and the Nazis came along. All of them had a penchant against religion. The Nazis viewed religion as a tool and actually sought to convert Germany to Islam as it was a conquerors religion - but they ultimately realized it as a means merely through which to establish empathy with a population. Their goals were entirely secular - both nationalist and humanist in agenda.
And how do you know I even exist?
By extension, the particles that make up who I am only have their properties determined when they are observed. Debates abound on exactly what an observer is... but allow me to boil it down to the essential question burning into the back of the minds of those who realize the implications of macroscopic Quantum Mechanical phenomena...
I only exist in your world because you have observed my existence - properties determined seemingly at random... or are they?
Perhaps you are a God trapped within his own creation, my own existence merely a fleeting thought produced by a fragment of your intelligence here to serve as some element of lesson... or victory... for your core intelligence.
In essence - prove that I'm not a figment of your imagination and that this world isn't all here just for you. By what objective measure do you accept the lives of others as actual sentient beings?
If the implications of this do not disturb you, then you don't truly understand the quandary of QM.
Reason shouts that there is allegory and euphemism at play in those words. Or did autism become a prerequisite to be an intellectual, these days?
Faith is simply the source of human precepts of ideology.
The very fact that you have attempted to discern between "Good" and "Wrong" suggests that you already take upon faith sets of moral pretense.
Most of yours are Western and come from Christian values. Your focus upon the treatment of individuals gives you away, here. Many other cultures do not have this reverence for the individual, even among the atheists within. Japanese are very authoritarian in their behavior - there are designated authorities who are to be followed. They accept this system on faith because it is part of their culture. If the doctor says to do something - you do it because Sempai said so. Korea and China are very similar. Figures of authority mean a lot to them - but are diddly squat to westerners.
Faith is simply at the core of how we all operate. It is incapable of being, as a concept, a source of good or evil.
