Guest redyellowblue

Curious - what is your religious belief (including atheism) and what supports / why this belief?

99 posts in this topic

@cowpoke02 I love how you call religion "fixed point thinking", and then go on and on about how religion ruins everything and every religion is corrupt, as if you can't even consider the notion of a "good" religion.

 

 

Jesus used hemp oil to cure the sick. Good guy or was he taking credit for medicine that can heal anything ? He was a rebellious soul and made the government mad and they killed him. Lol.jesus liked drugs. Lol. 

 

What?!

 

xxx

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion is fixed point thinking and theres different ones based on the same one but you can't get a long and fighting. People politicians use it to get elected and start wars for god use him to make a choice. They never think of the citizens. Make decisions on humanity. Can't wait for a atheist president. Lol. They believe in brother hood and humanity. Make the world a better place. But banks church got the money. Crazy world . Just another point they grew drugs for medicine saved lives mad3 everything with it. Today you would be a sinner devil for using cannabis. It cures a lot of cancers and helps other problems. Funny how they can make what they want illegal to support there industry's and sell you legal poison drugs that are addicting and dangerous. But you are scared of nature and safe medicine.history is funny. It amazes me.

 

I don't think you should be so--uncompromising in your disparagement of religion.

 

Obviously, as an agnostic, I am not religious. But is it creepy that I happen to find religious, or at least spiritual, women very sexy (well, assuming they're in decent shape)? I guess because it shows that they aren't totally slave to the impulsive whims of their emotions like most these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"""I believe what ever works for you. It backs you up takes pressure off and gives you guidelines. Me I belueve in more spiritual and nature . We are made from nature and the sun gives life . Religion was made by man and man corrupts for power and money . Modern religion is based on older ones. There based on astrology . Stars moon and heavens and the gods taking advantage of human nature and are wishing for great or purpose. When you have the power yo create values life and your life. Goes back to cave man faith healers. People learned quick that guy gets the easy life and in control. Jesus used hemp oil to cure the sick. Good guy or was he taking credit for medicine that can heal anything ? He was a rebellious soul and made the government mad and they killed him. Lol.jesus liked drugs. Lol.""""

 

Again Cowpoke you are using personal opinion and conjecture and trying to make it into a fact.

Please prove to me that just because there could be some religion that is manmade that all religions are man made. The simple truth is you cant do that.

 

Now your thinking of nature and the sun is fine and that is what philosophers call the HOW about how things work, but nature itself doesnt explain the why. You also have to deal with science here because the big bang theory says that nature itself had a definite creation point, meaning that it came into existence. Now correct me if Im wrong but something cannot be responsible for its own existence if it didnt previously exist. This is a logical contradiction.

 

As far as Jesus using hemp oil, there is no proof that teh hemp oil cured anyone, but Jesus performed great miracles  such as multiplying food raising the dead and healing the sick just by a command. It would be very hard for you to account for these things from a naturalistic basis.

 

The borde Guth Vilenkin theorum also states that all matter and energy had a starting point, well the next question to ask is caused them to come into existence since they dont magically pop into existence from literally non being.

 

Here is a good philosophical proof for the existence of God, and remember philosophy always precedes science.

 

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

 

Study this and you will understand that calling upon nature alone cant explain nature since nature itself had been caused to come into existence.

 

Out of non existence comes non existence

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I look at all religions as humanity understanding that there is more to this physical reality then this physical reality.

The native americans believed in the spiritual realm and for a long time secularists believed that the human soul was just a silly superstitous belief to try to explain things that science would later prove to have a natural explanation, but now even the american government has spent over 20 million bucks on remote viewing and a government spokesperson has said publicly that by normal scientific standards this has been proven.

 

What is remote viewing? It is basically an out of body experience where the consciousness or soul leaves the body and views things outside of the body. Why would our government spend so much money on this? Well they are trying to find a way to use it for intelligence purposes. That is their motivation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion is fixed point thinking and theres different ones based on the same one but you can't get a long and fighting. People politicians use it to get elected and start wars for god use him to make a choice. They never think of the citizens. Make decisions on humanity. Can't wait for a atheist president. Lol. They believe in brother hood and humanity. Make the world a better place. But banks church got the money. Crazy world . Just another point they grew drugs for medicine saved lives mad3 everything with it. Today you would be a sinner devil for using cannabis. It cures a lot of cancers and helps other problems. Funny how they can make what they want illegal to support there industry's and sell you legal poison drugs that are addicting and dangerous. But you are scared of nature and safe medicine.history is funny. It amazes me.

Again your speculating that because some people in power use religion as a political tool that this must meanthat religion is false.

This is your opinion and it is not based on anything other then your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I don't believe any way just my choice . I have to go back and read all of them. Nature and the truth is my belief . Kinda like nz and oz minus the part were there bit to friendly and look at things as enlightenment compared to sin. But they usually are blunt truthfull and no bull crap . Then every one can get along . Still be friends with different points of view . You don't waiste time. I like church goers some I admire but I couldn't explain I would need to find you tube clips. They enbody what it is supposed to be super people. America has bs problems these days I wonder if it was always that way . lol . I like facts. I need more research .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I here ya but there is no way . I got a lot of ghost stories so I know something is there. I chose to not take sides . Universe creates itself. Elements. If it is created then you're talking more quantum physics and be people controlling vibrations living in a matrix. They could control what you see by vibrations creating a fake world. Those are facts. I will go back and check any links. If they can do all that leave it a mistery there not very honest. Lol. Done talking but leave links I like looking at all sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer I like women with good values as well. They have the power and it is an attractive and respectable .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now your thinking of nature and the sun is fine and that is what philosophers call the HOW about how things work, but nature itself doesnt explain the why. You also have to deal with science here because the big bang theory says that nature itself had a definite creation point, meaning that it came into existence. Now correct me if Im wrong but something cannot be responsible for its own existence if it didnt previously exist. This is a logical contradiction.

 

 

Quick question, how did God come into existence? Surely at some point there was nothing. And if there was nothing, then how can God have come to be? Or darkness for that matter? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did God just exist in darkness forever and just suddenly decided to make people? Who made him? If nothing made him and its easy to believe that he's always been, how come its so unfathomable that the universe began from nothing, into everything?

Not trying to argue or offend, just asking :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question, how did God come into existence? Surely at some point there was nothing. And if there was nothing, then how can God have come to be? Or darkness for that matter?

Mirage great question , and I believe that the first cause argument by professor Peter Kreeft of Boston college would answer this perfectly.

http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

The argument is basically very simple, natural, intuitive, and commonsensical. We have to become complex and clever in order to doubt or dispute it. It is based on an instinct of mind that we all share: the instinct that says everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is.

Philosophers call this the Principle of Sufficient Reason. We use it every day, in common sense and in science as well as in philosophy and theology. If we saw a rabbit suddenly appear on an empty table, we would not blandly say, "Hi, rabbit. You came from nowhere, didn't you?" No, we would look for a cause, assuming there has to be one. Did the rabbit fall from the ceiling? Did a magician put it there when we weren't looking? If there seems to be no physical cause, we look for a psychological cause: perhaps someone hypnotized us. As a last resort, we look for a supernatural cause, a miracle. But there must be some cause. We never deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason itself. No one believes the Pop Theory: that things just pop into existence for no reason at all. Perhaps we will never find the cause, but there must be a cause for everything that comes into existence.

Now the whole universe is a vast, interlocking chain of things that come into existence. Each of these things must therefore have a cause. My parents caused me, my grandparents caused them, et cetera. But it is not that simple. I would not be here without billions of causes, from the Big Bang through the cooling of the galaxies and the evolution of the protein molecule to the marriages of my ancestors. The universe is a vast and complex chain of causes. But does the universe as a whole have a cause? Is there a first cause, an uncaused cause, a transcendent cause of the whole chain of causes? If not, then there is an infinite regress of causes, with no first link in the great cosmic chain. If so, then there is an eternal, necessary, independent, self-explanatory being with nothing above it, before it, or supporting it. It would have to explain itself as well as everything else, for if it needed something else as its explanation, its reason, its cause, then it would not be the first and uncaused cause. Such a being would have to be God, of course. If we can prove there is such a first cause, we will have proved there is a God.

Why must there be a first cause? Because if there isn't, then the whole universe is unexplained, and we have violated our Principle of Sufficient Reason for everything. If there is no first cause, each particular thing in the universe is explained in the short run, or proximately, by some other thing, but nothing is explained in the long run, or ultimately, and the universe as a whole is not explained. Everyone and everything says in turn, "Don't look to me for the final explanation. I'm just an instrument. Something else caused me." If that's all there is, then we have an endless passing of the buck. God is the one who says, "The buck stops here."

If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a great chain with many links; each link is held up by the link above it, but the whole chain is held up by nothing. If there is no first cause, then the universe is like a railroad train moving without an engine. Each car's motion is explained proximately by the motion of the car in front of it: the caboose moves because the boxcar pulls it, the boxcar moves because the cattle car pulls it, et cetera. But there is no engine to pull the first car and the whole train. That would be impossible, of course. But that is what the universe is like if there is no first cause: impossible.

Here is one more analogy. Suppose I tell you there is a book that explains everything you want explained. You want that book very much. You ask me whether I have it. I say no, I have to get it from my wife. Does she have it? No, she has to get it from a neighbor. Does he have it? No, he has to get it from his teacher, who has to get it. . . et cetera, etcetera, ad infinitum. No one actually has the book. In that case, you will never get it. However long or short the chain of book borrowers may be, you will get the book only if someone actually has it and does not have to borrow it. Well, existence is like that book. Existence is handed down the chain of causes, from cause to effect. If there is no first cause, no being who is eternal and self-sufficient, no being who has existence by his own nature and does not have to borrow it from someone else, then the gift of existence can never be passed down the chain to others, and no one will ever get it. But we did get it. We exist. We got the gift of existence from our causes, down the chain, and so did every actual being in the universe, from atoms to archangels. Therefore there must be a first cause of existence, a God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did God just exist in darkness forever and just suddenly decided to make people? Who made him? If nothing made him and its easy to believe that he's always been, how come its so unfathomable that the universe began from nothing, into everything?

Not trying to argue or offend, just asking :P

Another great question Josh, I feel like I'm in a philosophy class :)

It is said that God is light and in him there is no darkness. As far as who made him I believe Peter Kreeft's first cause argument explains that sufficiently. http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

As far as the universe beginning from nothing, that is partially correct. The correct saying is that God creates the universe from materially nothing, not a literal nothing. I believe genesis says that God created the universe from a word, a command or a thought.

If this is true then a thought might be a material nothing Josh, but its not a literal nothing.

This next example isn't the best one but it will help you to understand the concept of thought or information in how it is non material.

You pick up a book and skim through it. The book contains ink, paper, a hard cover made from maybe wood, but is the book only ink, paper and wood? The obvious answer is no, it is also specified information which you couldn't measure materially but you know it's there and the specified complex information is in how the ink particles are arranged specifically into letters and the point is the specified information came from outside the ink, paper and wood. It is transcendent from those 3 material things.

The point is there is a huge difference between a material nothing and a literal nothing . A literal nothing is what philosophy calls non being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nature always finds away . Elements and what we are made of make planets and water and simple forms of life. I am saying you will never know the real answer . We are made from the universe is as far as it can go. I will look. Hitler also believed in a superior race don't make it right.lol. thanks for the links I do like all sides . It is a business and first forms of government. Keeps masses in control good and bad. Morning every one .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read that link. Well man developed thinking and abstract thought. Man thinks he is so great there must be more or a reason . People made a business based on man's fear of death and human nature . The gods that give your facts where made by men . Kinda evil actually to prey on people looking for answers and misleading them with 0 facts. If there is a god there is more than one and god has no meaning . God could be dirt space and elements and the sun . God is a very loose idea . Plus we all are gods and have power . Gods are no better than you . Your life is the most important thing you will ever know . More important than god. Keep yourself safe and enjoy life. Basically there is no God in the form of man cause you would be equals . You have to agree who or what god is before we cab agree or disagree .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Born and raised Hindu but I would fine marrying a Christen. Some of my relatives married very nicely well brought up Christens. One of my relative's groom was a lawyer based in Sussex and he such a splendid gentleman

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes . You have to have faith . Trick is religion is locked in from birth and guilt it is never taught in any other forms of faith. You're stuck with religion and any other version you're crazy or the devil. Smart people invented a monopoly. Lol. Demonizing society and progression. Future religion will be more modern cause they change it as it goes . Less strict and open . Lighter side .some guy will talk to god and he will hsve the facts. The soul is another good one. Like god what do you mean it is ? We could actually agree on both and argue for hours thinking we don't. Spirit is how things make you feel inside like people and things you like or don't like. You want to live to make that happy feeling inside but it may just be emotions . But are energy does go some where and that don't mean it's your spirit . Lol. This is why people came to America .Liberty free to fallow your religion or ideas with out persicution.nobody has to give there soul for one persons beliefs. Lol.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nature always finds away . Elements and what we are made of make planets and water and simple forms of life. I am saying you will never know the real answer . We are made from the universe is as far as it can go. I will look. Hitler also believed in a superior race don't make it right.lol. thanks for the links I do like all sides . It is a business and first forms of government. Keeps masses in control good and bad. Morning every one .

Cowpoke when you find out how nature finds a way to create itself from a literal nothing p,ease let me know.

I also like questions to as it tells me that people are honestly curious about the big questions.

Since the Big Bang happened, that tells us that everything , nature included came into existence at a set point in time (13.7 billion years ago). So since nature itself came I to existence , nature itself was caused by something or someone transcendent of it.

These are the questions that the first cause argument answers directly.

If nature was caused to come into existence , nature couldn't be responsible for its own creatiion.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause .

I'm an old earth creationist so I have no problem with believing that the earth is 13.7 billion years old and it doesn't clash with the book of genesis . If you read genesis in its original Hebrew form the word used for day is called YOM and YOM in Hebrew can mean either literal day or time period. I know this is still used today even in the lebanese language because my parents have used it many times to mean either of these 2 definitions.

My ancestors were the original heathen caananites lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Born and raised Hindu.

I have many Hindu friends :)

In fact 7 of my best friends are Hindu and another best friend who was a Hindu who converted to Christianity before he passed away 3 years back. They are more then friends to me. In fact I call them all my brothers, except for one who I call my sister lol .

I have a great respect for all faiths :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is said that God is light and in him there is no darkness. As far as who made him I believe Peter Kreeft's first cause argument explains that sufficiently. http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

 

Well, I'm no philosopher; I've never even had a philosophy class, but I thought I'd stick my neck out and comment. I read through most of the article.

 

The first-cause argument, from what I can tell, makes a whole lot of assumptions and then states them as inarguable fact. For example, "Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being." Why does the first cause have to be a being?

 

On the four bullet-ed versions of the argument (I won't paste them so this won't make sense to anyone who hasn't read the part of the article I'm referring to):

 

First: Basically, I think, this version says that we exist and continue to exist, so we must have been brought into existence. I suppose it assumes that this "first mover" has to be God.

 

Second: Similar to the first; we are second causes ("caused causes"), and so would not exist without a first cause ("un-caused cause"). This one is still in the realm of common sense but does not prove God by any means.

 

Third: "In other words, if everything could die, then, given infinite time, everything would eventually die." From my understanding of thermodynamics, that is exactly what is happening. "And if there is no God, then there must have been infinite time, the universe must have been here always, with no beginning, no first cause. But this universal death has not happened; things do exist! Therefore there must be a necessary being that cannot not be, cannot possibly cease to be. That is a description of God." It's true that whatever was before this universe, as it is, was--whether God or the materials necessary for the Big Bang or something else--is baffling to think about. This argument again makes the assumption that what is now could not have been caused by anything other than an un-caused, sentient being.

 

Fourth: This argument assumes that we had to derive our ideas of value, goodness and perfection from our first cause, and could not have learned and developed them on our own over time, or if we did then they are meaningless.

 

I'm not saying these arguments don't have any merit, but I don't feel that they prove God, as the article seems to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is more of a distraction . Keeps people away from more important things like keeping up with governments and doing what's best for humanity. Stopping wars dept and pollution and better drugs and care. Keeps the crooked people in power . God helps them who help themselves . My favorite one. I do agree with alot of things just not all. More links to look at.rather rise up and solve problems and avoid rapture and evil doers. I figure god wants you to think for yourself . Create new beautiful things and better ways .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree I think very smart people took creation and simple logic turned it into the creator and gods and complicated . It is a creation and miraculous but not a being . They created themselves prosperity .lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"""The first-cause argument, from what I can tell, makes a whole lot of assumptions and then states them as inarguable fact. For example, "Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being." Why does the first cause have to be a being?"""

That is a good question. Have you ever seen specified complex information come about from anything other then a mind.

No, and the fine tuning of the universe and the inordinately more complex language of DNA also speaks to an intelligent designer .

The first cause has to be a being because he consciously brought this all into existence .these are just a few examples of why we believe this uncaused first cause to be a personal being.

Doctor William lane craig has a better explanation as to why he believes this as he answers a similar question as yours.

You can also see this person asked why wouldn't it be just as plausible to say that this first cause wasnt some I personable machine or something else.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/must-the-cause-of-the-universe-be-personal-redux

Recall that by this point we’ve already proved that the first cause exists beginninglessly and changelessly without creation. That is the key to the argument, not whether this cause is timeless or in a sort of eventless, undifferentiated time before creation. (You know my own view is the former, though I’m prepared to fall back to the latter if my preferred position is shown to be untenable.) The point is that if the causal conditions sufficient for the universe were permanently present (whether timelessly or sempiternally), then the universe should exist as permanently as the cause. Here’s how I put it in Reasonable Faith:

One way to see the difficulty is by reflecting on the different types of causal relations. In event/event causation, one event causes another. For example, the brick’s striking the window pane causes the pane to shatter. This kind of causal relation clearly involves a beginning of the effect in time, since it is a relation between events which occur at specific times. In state/state causation one state of affairs causes another state of affairs to exist. For example, the water’s having a certain density is the cause of the wood’s floating on the water. In this sort of causal relation, the effect need not have a beginning: the wood could theoretically be floating eternally on the water. . . . Now the difficulty that arises in the case of the cause of the beginning of the universe is that we seem to have a peculiar case of state/event causation: the cause is a timeless state but the effect is an event that occurred at a specific moment in the finite past. Such state/event causation doesn’t seem to make sense, since a state sufficient for the existence of its effect should have a state as its effect.

There seems to be only one way out of this dilemma, and that is to say that the cause of the universe’s beginning is a personal agent who freely chooses to create a universe in time. Philosophers call this type of causation “agent causation,†and because the agent is free, he can initiate new effects by freely bringing about conditions which were not previously present.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/must-the-cause-of-the-universe-be-personal-redux#ixzz2fXn2BD5i

I believe this answers objection 1 , 2 and 3 sufficiently

As for objection 4

"""Fourth: This argument assumes that we had to derive our ideas of value, goodness and perfection from our first cause, and could not have learned and developed them on our own over time, or if we did then they are meaningless.

I'm not saying these arguments don't have any merit, but I don't feel that they prove God, as the article seems to say."""

First of all I would say that its very obvious that we can't learn them on our own. You ask why? Well first of all in our experience as human beings we have many different people that have many different opinions as to what is right and what is wrong. There are even some people who believe that liquidating a few billion people would be the right and noble thing to do in order to lessen tye suffering on our species , and there are some that would make the case against it and have equally good reasons for doing so. Do you see the problem here? Here is the classical case of morality being arbitrary and not objective, yet almost all human beings across all belief systems recognize that there are acts that are objectively , morally wrong no matter where in the universe we are , rape being one of them . It's obvious that something outside of us is inputting this information into us, because in a purely atheistic realm there is no ultimate or objective right or wrong, there just is. As I have shown that God is a personal being it flows that he would input his laws into our hearts.

Or as William lane craig put it

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-we-be-good-without-god

Today I want to argue that if God exists, then the objectivity of moral values, moral duties, and moral accountability is secured, but that in the absence of God, that is, if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to say, morality is wholly subjective and non-binding. We might act in precisely the same ways that we do in fact act, but in the absence of God, such actions would no longer count as good (or evil), since if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. Thus, we cannot truly be good without God. On the other hand, if we do believe that moral values and duties are objective, that provides moral grounds for believing in God.

On the theistic view, objective moral values are rooted in God. God’s own holy and perfectly good nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. God’s moral nature is what Plato called the “Good.†He is the locus and source of moral value. He is by nature loving, generous, just, faithful, kind, and so forth.

Moreover, God’s moral nature is expressed in relation to us in the form of divine commands which constitute our moral duties or obligations. Far from being arbitrary, these commands flow necessarily from His moral nature. In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, the whole moral duty of man can be summed up in the two great commandments: First, you shall love the Lord your God with all your strength and with all your soul and with all your heart and with all your mind, and, second, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On this foundation we can affirm the objective goodness and rightness of love, generosity, self-sacrifice, and equality, and condemn as objectively evil and wrong selfishness, hatred, abuse, discrimination, and oppression.

Finally, on the theistic hypothesis God holds all persons morally accountable for their actions. Evil and wrong will be punished; righteousness will be vindicated. Good ultimately triumphs over evil, and we shall finally see that we do live in a moral universe after all. Despite the inequities of this life, in the end the scales of God’s justice will be balanced. Thus, the moral choices we make in this life are infused with an eternal significance. We can with consistency make moral choices which run contrary to our self-interest and even undertake acts of extreme self-sacrifice, knowing that such decisions are not empty and ultimately meaningless gestures. Rather our moral lives have a paramount significance. So I think it is evident that theism provides a sound foundation for morality.

Contrast this with the atheistic hypothesis. First, if atheism is true, objective moral values do not exist. If God does not exist, then what is the foundation for moral values? More particularly, what is the basis for the value of human beings? If God does not exist, then it is difficult to see any reason to think that human beings are special or that their morality is objectively true. Moreover, why think that we have any moral obligations to do anything? Who or what imposes any moral duties upon us? Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science, writes,

The position of the modern evolutionist . . . is that humans have an awareness of morality . . . because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth . . . . Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love they neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves . . . . Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory . . . .1

As a result of socio-biological pressures, there has evolved among homo sapiens a sort of “herd morality†which functions well in the perpetuation of our species in the struggle for survival. But there does not seem to be anything about homo sapiens that makes this morality objectively true.

Moreover, on the atheistic view there is no divine lawgiver. But then what source is there for moral obligation? Richard Taylor, an eminent ethicist, writes,

The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things are war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are ‘morally wrong,’ and they imagine that they have said something true and significant. Educated people do not need to be told, however, that questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion.2

He concludes,

Contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply, You can't convert to Hinduism and can only be born a Hindu.

My parents taught me to believe in God and Faith be it Jesus or Hindu gods. I have strong values of not drinking or smoking as I was bought in a household that never drank or smoked. I hope that my girlfriend/future wife is a non smoker , non drinker and if she is a virgin that would be great as she can understand why I was waiting. I am happy to marry into any religion as long as their beliefs are not pushed on to me. 

 

I have many Hindu friends :)
In fact 7 of my best friends are Hindu and another best friend who was a Hindu who converted to Christianity before he passed away 3 years back. They are more then friends to me. In fact I call them all my brothers, except for one who I call my sister lol .

I have a great respect for all faiths :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply, You can't convert to Hinduism and can only be born a Hindu.

My parents taught me to believe in God and Faith be it Jesus or Hindu gods. I have strong values of not drinking or smoking as I was bought in a household that never drank or smoked. I hope that my girlfriend/future wife is a non smoker , non drinker and if she is a virgin that would be great as she can understand why I was waiting. I am happy to marry into any religion as long as their beliefs are not pushed on to me. 

You remind me of some of my good friends from Calcutta. Sounds like you came from a very good family my friend. Your parents should be proud of the man you have become :)

 

You remind me of my best friend Ashoke who passed away suddenly a few years back. He didnt have a deceitful bone in his body and was abused by many people. He is now an angel in heaven. I cant wait to be reunited with my brother again :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now