Society After Religion - Page 11 - boards.ie
Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
25-03-2012, 13:51   #151
jank
Registered User
 
jank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 10,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by robindch View Post
Not amongst atheists or gays, it's not.
Give yourself a big pat on the back Robin, while you can smear indignation on the "others"
jank is offline  
Advertisement
25-03-2012, 14:16   #152
Zombrex
Closed Account
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 25,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by koth View Post
That link doesn't support the argument that the Catholic church was always opposed to slavery. In fact the opening paragraph, it says that the church had no firm stance on slavery until 1965 where it finally said that slavery is wrong without exception.
Well you know in fairness to the Catholic Church they had a lot of other things to sort out that were a lot more important than slavery. The first Ecumenical Council decided that gentiles didn't need to be circumcised (important questions that needed clarification).

It is no surprising that it took them 20 other Ecumenical Councils, and over 1900 years to get around to the trivial matter of slavery. I mean what colour robes priests wear don't just sort themselves out.
Zombrex is offline  
25-03-2012, 14:59   #153
ISAW
Banned
 
ISAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gbear View Post
It's irrelevant what religion says on anything. It doesn't matter whether it justifies slavery or not or weather god was vengeful or demanded daily hugging. You shouldn't be basing your morals on anything that's 1500+ years old.
we base science on Greek philosophy that is 2500 years old.
ISAW is offline  
25-03-2012, 17:58   #154
Doctor Jimbob
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Donegal
Posts: 1,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISAW View Post
we base science on Greek philosophy that is 2500 years old.
Scientific texts change to reflect our changing knowledge. Religious texts do not.
Doctor Jimbob is offline  
Thanks from:
25-03-2012, 18:20   #155
ISAW
Banned
 
ISAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Jimbob View Post
Scientific texts change to reflect our changing knowledge. Religious texts do not.
Wrong! there is ample tracts of thological discussion on almost everything. ensoulme, ayrianism, nesrtorianism etc; *The anti nicean fathers have a long list of things discussed at that time.
Augustine of hippo was a person who I think held heretical views - Manichaeism and changed them;
iraeneus on Heresies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_...-Called_Gnosis
details a good deal of different thoughts of that time.

And those anti nicean tomes are only from the first two centuries of christianity.

Scientific texts also have a "received view" or "paradigm" which remains for centuries until changed or updated.
ISAW is offline  
Advertisement
25-03-2012, 23:04   #156
robindch
Moderator
 
robindch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 18,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISAW View Post
Scientific texts also have a "received view" or "paradigm" which remains for centuries until changed or updated.
WTF?

Its mutability in the face of new evidence is the whole point of science.
robindch is offline  
Thanks from:
25-03-2012, 23:26   #157
ISAW
Banned
 
ISAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by robindch View Post
WTF?

Its mutability in the face of new evidence is the whole point of science.
The church have changed their opinion too as i pointed out.
There is little central dogma.

Do you believe that science can prove logic and reason is wrong?
so therefore it has some dogma?

also what to you mean by "it" i.e "science" what is it?
And why is changing the central reason for science given reason does not change?
ISAW is offline  
25-03-2012, 23:42   #158
robindch
Moderator
 
robindch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 18,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISAW View Post
The church have changed their opinion too as i pointed out. There is little central dogma.
Which suggests that its claim to be the voice of their deity's unchangeable voice is somewhat dodgy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISAW View Post
Do you believe that science can prove logic and reason is wrong?
Given that the scientific framework is based up on logic and reason, I'm unsure about how you might think it could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISAW View Post
And why is changing the central reason for science given reason does not change?
Because the facts available to science change as humans develop and build more and more accurate devices to help evaluate one scientific theory against another.

In structural terms, form is science and is not open to debate, content is facts and these are open to debate.

You're welcome to apply the word "dogma" to the idea "If this explanation doesn't work, then change it", but it would be peculiar to do so.
robindch is offline  
(2) thanks from:
26-03-2012, 10:14   #159
Gbear
Registered User
 
Gbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISAW View Post
we base science on Greek philosophy that is 2500 years old.
I should clarify - what I meant was that the age of it doesn't infer any value.
You shouldn't practice the morality of something just because it's 1500 years old and called the Bible (or the Koran etc..).

There needs to be some merit in the idea and luckily, that's mostly what we do. Otherwise we'd be regularly beating (or killing) our children and the most trivial of offences would result in death, as per various holy books and as is still done in some Muslim countries.

Why religious people use the bible as a source of morality on subjects like sexual preference, contraception etc, and proclaim that by doing so they are following the word of God, yet completely ignore the very same word of God when it comes to the big chunks of the bible (you know what you are Leviticus!) that are really very awful indeed, I will never understand.
Gbear is offline  
Advertisement
26-03-2012, 17:25   #160
ISAW
Banned
 
ISAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by robindch View Post
Which suggests that its claim to be the voice of their deity's unchangeable voice is somewhat dodgy.
not really; some scientists believe in underlying unchangeable universal laws of physics for example. Is that "dodgy"?

Quote:
Given that the scientific framework is based up on logic and reason, I'm unsure about how you might think it could.
Theology is based on the same logic and reason.

Quote:
Because the facts available to science change as humans develop and build more and more accurate devices to help evaluate one scientific theory against another.
As do the facts available to Christianity.

Quote:
You're welcome to apply the word "dogma" to the idea "If this explanation doesn't work, then change it", but it would be peculiar to do so.
[/quote]

How about "there are universal laws of physics"?
Are you happy to accept such beliefs as acceptable to science?
ISAW is offline  
26-03-2012, 17:32   #161
ISAW
Banned
 
ISAW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gbear View Post
I should clarify - what I meant was that the age of it doesn't infer any value.
so if something is tried and tested and known to work even in the absence of religion e.g. the family as a basic unit of society we should not say that has any value?
Quote:
You shouldn't practice the morality of something just because it's 1500 years old and called the Bible (or the Koran etc..).
who claimed anyone does?

Quote:
There needs to be some merit in the idea and luckily, that's mostly what we do. Otherwise we'd be regularly beating (or killing) our children and the most trivial of offences would result in death,
what is so wrong about slapping children ?
i dont think it results in death.
Quote:
as per various holy books and as is still done in some Muslim countries.
and atheist Marxists also killed people; but apparently do it it is because of the Bible and their belief but oif atheists do it it is because of anything but atheism.
Quote:
Why religious people use the bible as a source of morality on subjects like sexual preference, contraception etc, and proclaim that by doing so they are following the word of God,
Biblcal fundamentalists might but most Christians would not claim the Bible has rules non cloning.
Quote:
yet completely ignore the very same word of God when it comes to the big chunks of the bible (you know what you are Leviticus!) that are really very awful indeed, I will never understand.
Well then you are fairly ignorant of christianity and it appears of the bible. It isnt biblical fundamlentalism; and the need to follow leviticus was updated later on by Paul; it is mentioned in the Bible.
ISAW is offline  
26-03-2012, 17:46   #162
CerebralCortex
Registered User
 
CerebralCortex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Square one.
Posts: 3,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISAW View Post
what is so wrong about slapping children ?
Would you like it if I slapped you? I'd love to oblige!
CerebralCortex is offline  
26-03-2012, 17:52   #163
robindch
Moderator
 
robindch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Posts: 18,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISAW View Post
How about "there are universal laws of physics"?
Are you happy to accept such beliefs as acceptable to science?
You're still not getting the difference between the form of science and the content of science.

However, you seem more interested in simply disagreeing with everything that people say, rather than actually engaging in dialog, so have a read of my previous post again.
robindch is offline  
Thanks from:
26-03-2012, 19:24   #164
swampgas
Registered User
 
swampgas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: West Cork
Posts: 1,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISAW View Post
not really; some scientists believe in underlying unchangeable universal laws of physics for example. Is that "dodgy"?

Theology is based on the same logic and reason.
Science is built on observable evidence, and what can be repeatedly demonstrated by independent experiments. Science is internally consistent.

Theology is a joke because it starts with a whole bunch of dodgy conclusions and then uses a sort of pretend logic to justify them. Theology is "pre-science" and it shows.

More tellingly though, there is only ONE mainstream version of science, across multiple nationalities, cultures, languages and (dare I say it) religious beliefs.

There are umpteen incompatible versions of theology out there, because it's all untestable waffle.

And theology didn't put a man on the moon either.

Last edited by swampgas; 26-03-2012 at 19:34. Reason: Cut/paste incompetence
swampgas is offline  
26-03-2012, 22:30   #165
recedite
Registered User
 
recedite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Co Wicklow
Posts: 4,692
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISAW View Post
In spite of a stronger condemnation of unjust types of slavery by Pope Gregory XVI in his bull In Supremo Apostolatus issued in 1839, some American bishops continued to support slave-holding interests
Can you clarify for us which types of slavery are just and which are unjust
1839 seems very late for a European to be joining the abolitionists?......in any case the British Navy had already destroyed the African slave trade by then, so his half-hearted condemnation was a bit pointless.
recedite is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet