re: Science, Race, Homosexuality, Abortion, and Religion

quote:

---

You are so all over the place in this thread, it is hard to tell what point you are trying to make. Is it that you feel that religion should play a more prominent role in society to match that of the "religion" of science? Is it that you don't agree with the current direction of our country and world?

---

I am actually not all over the place. I am making just one point. Here it is:

#1 We have claimed to be a society that uses science and reason to make decisions and therefore, religion (which is not provable by science or reason) should not be admitted into the discussion on how we order our society. Whenever anyone makes a religious argument, it is dismissed as simply subjective and not provable at all.

#2 In bringing up Race, Homosexuality, and Abortion, I gave THREE examples where social customs and public policy are decidedly NOT rooted in Science, Reason, or objective fact. It is a mix of human emotion, past history and injustices, and current desire. There is nothing provable or objective about these issues, yet, laws are written and society is changed.

I am all for us not being racist. It is stupid. I am all for treating homosexuals with dignity and making sure that they are protected, although I do see marriage in a religious sense so I don't support gay marriage. However, I do understand the civil aspect of it and a nation-state can do what it wants. So, that is a moot point, although I have no problem with religious people opposing gay marriage strictly on religious grounds (even that is opposed now). Finally, I am opposed to abortion because I believe it to be murder.

quote:

---

We have claimed to be a society that uses science and reason to make decisions
Where is that located in the Constitution?

---

It's right there next to the part which proclaims our goal as a society is to be fair.

quote:

---

Those "many believe" are losers. The sooner they wake up and realize that, the better off us "non-losers" will be.

---

So, should we just do as we please to whoever we please? And then later upon realizing our error just say "sorry" and move on? Would your answer be the same regardless of which side you are on?

quote:

---

As you're flapping your gums, please realize your sitting on property that belonged to some of my ancestors.

---

Hasn't much been done to try to atone for those mistakes, as well? Don't attack me, I'm just trying to explain to OP why his science/religion views are off the mark.

quote:

---

Nice sentiment, but there's an industry built around the perpetually aggrieved. It's just cost of business borne by those who are pulling the wagon.

---

What's your point here? Our society has problems, as all do.

quote:

---

Going full humanist now? Never go full humanist.

---

Can you try making an actual point instead of throwing around supposed "insults"?

quote:

---

First, the goal of society isn't to be fair. The goal is to survive as a culture. How old are you? Six?

---

More insults. Tell me, how long will a culture survive if it is unfair to many of its members? The only way for an unjust society to continue for any substantial amount of time is to do so by force/oppression.

Are you promoting the idea that a society should be unfair to a particular set of its members based not on the things they do and choices they make, but instead on who they are?

quote:

---

It's not just a religious view. Mother Nature doesn't like species that don't reproduce.

---

And yet, those darn gay people just won't die off. Should we exterminate them? Mother Nature doesn't seem so cruel to gay creatures.

quote:

---

I'm not insecure in the least.

---

Are you sure? Insulting those you do not agree with can be a strong sign of insecurity.

quote:

---

My bloodline will outlive yours.

---

A bold assertion. Want to bookmark and check back in here in 100 years?

quote:

---

We have claimed to be a society that uses science and reason to make decisions and therefore, religion (which is not provable by science or reason) should not be admitted into the discussion on how we order our society. Whenever anyone makes a religious argument, it is dismissed as simply subjective and not provable at all.

---

"We" haven't claimed to be a society based upon science, you are making that claim. As I tried to explain earlier in this thread, the vast majority of our laws and decisions are based on the morality of the majority, and there is substantial overlap here between basic human morality and religious morality. Science, on the other hand, has no morals. It is simply a tool that we use to help us understand and make decisions about what our morals mean and how we want to apply them to society.

quote:

---

In bringing up Race, Homosexuality, and Abortion, I gave THREE examples where social customs and public policy are decidedly NOT rooted in Science, Reason, or objective fact. It is a mix of human emotion, past history and injustices, and current desire. There is nothing provable or objective about these issues, yet, laws are written and society is changed.

---

And these three examples of public policy NOT rooted in science are representative of the vast majority of our customs and policy which likewise are NOT rooted in science. The decision-making of a society is firmly rooted in morals, and I don't understand why you insist that we create policy based on science. As I've said several times, science is simply a tool to help us understand the world, and as such it may influence the decisions we make. But those decisions are still made based upon what we deem just, not what science deems just.

Religion is, in its simplest form, man's attempt at organizing and spreading a set of morals and beliefs. It is not a tool in the way that science is, but it arguably has more influence on our society than science does. You just need to realize that that moral code found in a religion is based upon the basic moral code that already exists in people.

quote:

---

#1 We have claimed to be a society that uses science and reason to make decisions and therefore, religion (which is not provable by science or reason) should not be admitted into the discussion on how we order our society. Whenever anyone makes a religious argument, it is dismissed as simply subjective and not provable at all.

#2 In bringing up Race, Homosexuality, and Abortion, I gave THREE examples where social customs and public policy are decidedly NOT rooted in Science, Reason, or objective fact. It is a mix of human emotion, past history and injustices, and current desire. There is nothing provable or objective about these issues, yet, laws are written and society is changed.

I am all for us not being racist. It is stupid. I am all for treating homosexuals with dignity and making sure that they are protected, although I do see marriage in a religious sense so I don't support gay marriage. However, I do understand the civil aspect of it and a nation-state can do what it wants. So, that is a moot point, although I have no problem with religious people opposing gay marriage strictly on religious grounds (even that is opposed now). Finally, I am opposed to abortion because I believe it to be murder.

---

quote:

---

Since you're asking my advice, I'd recommend you take up Christianity and live it if you want a fruitful and peaceful life. Forgiveness, such an incredible concept. It washes both the sinner and victim clean. Try it, you'll like it.

---

Forgiveness can work on a case-by-case basis, but it's not much of a deterrent to behavior that will not be tolerated by society, but this is getting off topic.

quote:

---

Ya, the Wind Creek Resort and Casino makes up for the Trail of Tears. How does a future generation atone for things done by their great grandfathers? Hint: unpossible.

---

Yeah, and I said as much if you would try to understand what I'm saying rather than attacking the words I use.

quote:

---

If you can't understand "perpetually aggrieved," then we just ain't on the same wavelength. It's what people like you do. You herd a group into a pen and then blame your political opponents for the fence you put up.

---

I understand it just fine, and I think you will find that we are on at least similar wavelengths if you will listen to what I'm saying. I was simply telling OP that his claim that the decisions society makes are based in science is wrong, and that they are instead based in morality. Right or wrong, futile or not, the decisions themselves have a moral base. Not scientific, not religious, but instead morality and justice. The fact that these attempts are misguided is beside the point.

quote:

---

Yet another insight into a craven liberal mind. Unjust society? Force and oppression? Am I back in a college dorm room at 2AM after a six of Budweiser? Please tell me about the "just" societies that have persevered which have any relevance.

---

Can you cut out the fluff and just say what you want to say? It should be pretty clear that an unjust society can only persist as long as it oppresses or eliminates those that it is unjust against. Can you explain why this is incorrect?

quote:

---

Why would you exterminate a resource? I say tax gays at twice the amount as hetero couples. Heteros propagate the species with future taxpayers.

---

Wow, what an insightful glimpse into your thought process. Why not say that gay couples do not have more children than they can support, and do not in turn place a tax-leeching burden on society? Why not say that, in fact, they take in and support children whose hetero parents could not or did not want to support them? Why not realize that their desire to raise children probably eliminates a substantial number of abortions by heteros?

Why does Christianity preach such hate and intolerance?

quote:

---

Forgiveness can work on a case-by-case basis,

---

The more you post, the more I realize how infatuated you are with yourself. Why would a victim forgive someone? It's not like a victim suddenly has power to absolve a perpetrator for some injustice. The reason a victim must forgive it to let it go, and clean themselves rather than dwell on it. Whether the perp deserves it or not it irrelevant. Maybe you should write this down on a sticky and put it somewhere you'll see it every day.

quote:

---

Have not found any of that Roger.

---

Well then let me educate. Since you claim to have never found any of that, all I must do is provide a single instance of each to prove you wrong:

Contradiction: All four gospels differ in which women and how many women found the empty tomb.

Historical inaccuracies: The bible says Judas of Galilee raised a revolt that followed that of Theudas, but we know from Roman records that Judas' revolt was in 7 AD and Theudas' was in 46-47 AD.

Edits: The last 12 verses of Mark were added hundreds of years later so it would include a resurrection account like the others.

Gross mistranslations: All modern translations inaccurately translate gehenna, sheol and tartaroo to "hell". Sheol just means the grave (or according to some, an ambiguous realm of the dead like hades with no good or bad connotation) in Hebrew, tartaroo means abyss in Greek and gehenna was a trash dump outside of Jerusalem. All three words mean different things and none mean a literal place of eternal torment.

Splicing together of multiple texts from multiple era: The first book, Genesis, was written between 800 and 1000 BC. Revelations, the last book, was written in 100 AD.

If you want to see different books in different bibles, just compare a catholic and protestant bible. The protestant bible is missing seven original books that Martin Luther took out.

Nice post. Unffortunately these facts will be dismissed by fundamentalists, as with any evidence that contradicts an established belief.

We are dealing with a belief system that teaches too much thinking or gaining too much knowledge is a bad thing