User Tag List

First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 126

  1. #81
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    It is not the first time we disagree.
    It seems fairly straight forward. Believing a god or gods is the prime creator and mover of the universe does in and of itself have specific ethical meaning, and an ethical system can be constructed with no reference to such a concept.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  2. #82
    reflecting pool Typh0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    3,095

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    It seems fairly straight forward. Believing a god or gods is the prime creator and mover of the universe does in and of itself have specific ethical meaning, and an ethical system can be constructed with no reference to such a concept.
    Sure, but not all religion necesarily beleives in a god or gods as creator of the universe. Look at Bhuddism as an example. Im just saying here that an ethical system( and not just plain ethics) would have to exist at least within the conext of a complex enough philosophy, complex enough to call it religion maybe.

  3. #83
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    It seems fairly straight forward. Believing a god or gods is the prime creator and mover of the universe does in and of itself have specific ethical meaning, and an ethical system can be constructed with no reference to such a concept.
    Which would be fine Magic if we were talking in the abstract without reference to any ACTUAL religions, living or dead, give religion some credit, I know you've been athiestic with a vengence for a while now but ceasing to acknowledge facts because of whatever ideological trip you're on is not something I'd have previously associated with you.

    The only system of thought I can think of which would even come to a close approximation of what you generalise as "religion" is philosophical deism and that's it, there's not a single theistic religion that I'm aware of which does not involve an ethical framework and the non-theistic ones I know about are almost completely ethical frameworks (the objects of devotion are obviously different because there's not a deity).

  4. #84
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Typh0n View Post
    Sure, but not all religion necesarily beleives in a god or gods as creator of the universe. Look at Bhuddism as an example. Im just saying here that an ethical system( and not just plain ethics) would have to exist at least within the conext of a complex enough philosophy, complex enough to call it religion maybe.
    An ethical and cosmological philosophy are two different things which may not be connected. At any rate, since atheists and agnostics such as myself have an ethical system, it's not clear how this "complex" philosophy would have to be religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Which would be fine Magic if we were talking in the abstract without reference to any ACTUAL religions, living or dead, give religion some credit, I know you've been athiestic with a vengence for a while now but ceasing to acknowledge facts because of whatever ideological trip you're on is not something I'd have previously associated with you.
    See below for my explanation about this. And I'm not sure what this position even has to do with giving religion credit. Is it somehow an insult to say that religion and ethics are not inherently related?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    The only system of thought I can think of which would even come to a close approximation of what you generalise as "religion" is philosophical deism and that's it, there's not a single theistic religion that I'm aware of which does not involve an ethical framework and the non-theistic ones I know about are almost completely ethical frameworks (the objects of devotion are obviously different because there's not a deity).
    Sure, every religion seems to come with an ethical framework, but there are a couple problems with this being a good point. One is that while every religion might have an ethical framework, they do not all have the same ethical framework. Those even within the same denomination do not necessarily agree to or adhere to the ethical framework in the same way. And just as many (if I dare say more) atheists also have a philosophical ethical framework. Putting these three points together, it becomes unclear what the special connection is between religion and ethics. In other words, the relationship between religion and ethics seems to be nothing more than the fact that a preponderance of human beings happen to be both religious and somewhat ethical at the same time.

    I also wanted to say that your bold statement is false. Buddhism involved cosmological ideas. Religions, theistic or not, have involved cosmological concepts as frequently as ethical ones.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  5. #85
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    An ethical and cosmological philosophy are two different things which may not be connected. At any rate, since atheists and agnostics such as myself have an ethical system, it's not clear how this "complex" philosophy would have to be religion.



    See below for my explanation about this. And I'm not sure what this position even has to do with giving religion credit. Is it somehow an insult to say that religion and ethics are not inherently related?



    Sure, every religion seems to come with an ethical framework, but there are a couple problems with this being a good point. One is that while every religion might have an ethical framework, they do not all have the same ethical framework. Those even within the same denomination do not necessarily agree to or adhere to the ethical framework in the same way. And just as many (if I dare say more) atheists also have a philosophical ethical framework. Putting these three points together, it becomes unclear what the special connection is between religion and ethics. In other words, the relationship between religion and ethics seems to be nothing more than the fact that a preponderance of human beings happen to be both religious and somewhat ethical at the same time.

    I also wanted to say that your bold statement is false. Buddhism involved cosmological ideas. Religions, theistic or not, have involved cosmological concepts as frequently as ethical ones.
    Magic, and you did this in the other thread and its one of the reasons I dont usually bother with your posts anymore, you where not giving religion credit because you first denied that there was any proof positive relationship between religion and ethics at all, I would suggest because you have a grudge against religion generally, and when you couldnt sustain that any longer (see highlighting) you breeze over what's a pretty major blind spot to suggest with a lot of characteristic verbosity something vague, maybe its about consistency, maybe its about asserting something about atheism, who the hell knows.

  6. #86
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Well here's a question: Can you qualify as part of a religion without having a particular cosmological and ethical belief?
    Not typically from what I understand, except for a few applications of Buddhism that approach it as a philosophy. There are atheist Buddhist, for example.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

  7. #87
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsequitur View Post
    For those who think that the peer-review process of publication and funding actually works:

    http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrez...science-fraud/

    For those who think that "scientific method" is adhered to, and high-profile publications = important publications:
    http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/...l.pmed.0020124
    http://www.nature.com/news/replicati...d-copy-1.10634

    For simple/editorial-style summaries of what is going on in general:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...d-bad-practice
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ud-replication

    As someone who's seen how rotten the system is from the inside and how self-deluding salesman scientists are... I'm just glad to be getting out. There IS good science, don't get me wrong. There are loads of individuals I know who are in science and who have impeccable ethics and would never let their ambition get in the way of scientific progress. But these individuals are building their findings on a house of cards because their peers around them do not have the same level of integrity. Science is not a religion. Neither is it a process. In the modern world, science is just like any business, except that some believe it to be more prestigious than others. The most ruthless and the ones with the least consideration of what is "right" play the political game to get to the top, continue to believe their own lies and destroy/defame those who disagree. That is "science" from my perspective. Science deserves no more or less respect than any other industry.
    Thank you for this. Good post.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  8. #88
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Magic, and you did this in the other thread and its one of the reasons I dont usually bother with your posts anymore, you where not giving religion credit because you first denied that there was any proof positive relationship between religion and ethics at all, I would suggest because you have a grudge against religion generally, and when you couldnt sustain that any longer (see highlighting) you breeze over what's a pretty major blind spot to suggest with a lot of characteristic verbosity something vague, maybe its about consistency, maybe its about asserting something about atheism, who the hell knows.
    What I said was that religion was not necessary for ethics and ethics was not necessary for religion. That in and of itself does not say that there isn't a positive correlation because it speaks only of necessities. This is the same as the fact that there is a strong positive correlation between being American and speaking English but neither necessitates the other. So even granting there were a positive correlation, it would refute my assertion not one bit.

    That being said, I do question the positive correlation, going back to my point that being religious and being ethical both seem to be very common things, thus there is a very large number of ethical religious people. But the frequency of non-ethical religious people, and ethical non-religious people, seems to suggest that an actual correlation is not that strong. There may be none at all. It must be said that part of the issue might come from distinguishing the academic concept of a religion from the tendencies of actual religious people. It's a thought.

    My advice to you is the spend less time trying to figure out where the other person is coming from and more time thinking about their statements. I suspect you take me for someone more rabidly atheist than I am. I am hardly a Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. Either way you seem to use your notions about how I am as a reason to think less about what I say.

    Quote Originally Posted by fia View Post
    Not typically from what I understand, except for a few applications of Buddhism that approach it as a philosophy. There are atheist Buddhist, for example.
    This is sort of what I'm getting at.

    I see the disagreement over my claim that religion has no method. I can see how they sort of do, though my issue with that would be the following. Religion as a whole is not a thing with a singular method (and it follows that it can't be defined by such a thing then), the methods themselves are in no way systematic, and usually religious people are not even aware that they have such methods and may even take offense at the suggestion. In that way, these so-called methods are quite different from science, but I can still see how it would qualify as religion having methods.

    But the point of my last question is to illustrate a difference from science. Although there is something we call a scientific consensus, like the heliocentric model or the theory of evolution, there is no specific belief about the universe, be it a true/false statement or a good/bad statement, that one must have to use the scientific method, to think scientifically, or be called a scientist. That makes it quite different from religion by my reckoning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    Thank you for this. Good post.
    To me it seems somewhere between taking a piss on art because a lot of artists are douche bags, and rejecting education because the USA's education system is broken. It seems to miss the central point with possibly negative consequences.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  9. #89
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    What I said was that religion was not necessary for ethics and ethics was not necessary for religion. That in and of itself does not say that there isn't a positive correlation because it speaks only of necessities. This is the same as the fact that there is a strong positive correlation between being American and speaking English but neither necessitates the other. So even granting there were a positive correlation, it would refute my assertion not one bit.

    That being said, I do question the positive correlation, going back to my point that being religious and being ethical both seem to be very common things, thus there is a very large number of ethical religious people. But the frequency of non-ethical religious people, and ethical non-religious people, seems to suggest that an actual correlation is not that strong. There may be none at all. It must be said that part of the issue might come from distinguishing the academic concept of a religion from the tendencies of actual religious people. It's a thought.

    My advice to you is the spend less time trying to figure out where the other person is coming from and more time thinking about their statements. I suspect you take me for someone more rabidly atheist than I am. I am hardly a Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. Either way you seem to use your notions about how I am as a reason to think less about what I say.
    Nope Magic, I'm actually apt to take exactly what people are saying for where the other person is coming from, its hard to figure anything else with the limited information available in a context like an online forum, and what you were very clearly saying was not what you're now saying. Perhaps you meant to be clear from the beginning but I suspect you're just becoming guarded and defensive like you did before.

    Its not big deal to say that you dont believe in something but that its got its good points but you cant do that because you're chasing after some nutty black and white, truth and lies, set of dichotomies, maybe I did that when I was younger to but not these days and I think that's the difference. Its also why I dont find talking to you as worthwhile as I once did.

  10. #90
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Nope Magic, I'm actually apt to take exactly what people are saying for where the other person is coming from
    Considering all the times "I see no problem with homosexuality" was interpreted as "we must stigmatize heterosexuality" I don't think you take people at face value.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    its hard to figure anything else with the limited information available in a context like an online forum, and what you were very clearly saying was not what you're now saying. Perhaps you meant to be clear from the beginning but I suspect you're just becoming guarded and defensive like you did before.
    I really don't know how to demonstrate that might point has been consistent beyond what I've already said. It would be very tedious and repetitive, that's for sure.

    People become defensive when they feel their justifications for an important belief are vulnerable. Between my apathy about strictly religious matters and the fact that I feel invulnerable on this particular position, I can assure you I am not getting defensive. Rather, this is exactly what I was telling you about. Your focus is on me being defensive (in your imagination) rather making sense of what I said in its own right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Its not big deal to say that you dont believe in something but that its got its good points but you cant do that because you're chasing after some nutty black and white, truth and lies, set of dichotomies, maybe I did that when I was younger to but not these days and I think that's the difference. Its also why I dont find talking to you as worthwhile as I once did.
    1: I have no idea what the bold part has to do with this discussion or where it would have come up.

    2: My open-ended decoupling of religion and ethics is actually a less black and white position than binding them together, I would think, as it allows for more possibilities and therefore creates fewer dichotomies.

    3: It strains credibility to claim that you do not think in black and white.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

Similar Threads

  1. Why Science is so Hard to Believe
    By Hard in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 156
    Last Post: 03-17-2015, 03:38 PM
  2. [Other] What is your favorite quote...
    By jck221 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 07-09-2014, 05:43 PM
  3. Is religion a science?
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-02-2013, 11:27 PM
  4. Science is nothing more than magic that actually works.
    By onemoretime in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 08-06-2012, 09:20 AM
  5. Is your Religion your Race?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 12-24-2009, 04:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO