Maybe but if someone wants to wear or not wear a condom it doesn't directly hurt or harm another person right? Any libertarian would recognise that.

Anyway would you replace one form of 'social engineering' with another?

 

First point: Yes it does, aids is harmful. Even good aids. Re: libertarianism; see first point.

Yes, if it was better. Better than almost directly contributing towards the spread of aids.

 

Ok I phrased that badly, but surely it's the couples choice if they use a condom or not?

Better by what measure though?

Perhaps you would chop all African mens dicks off to stop AIDS?

 

This is silly.

 

The last point maybe but the rest isn't.

Point is who are you to tell Africans what they should do and what they need?

 

Remember the public information broadcasts in the 80s and the school teachers telling us how to prevent AIDs by wearing a condom? Hardly an affront to liberty, was it? If an organisation is going to make recommendations about condom use in a region suffering an empidemic, they ought to leave to oneside the Biblicly inspired sanctity of life stuff and suggest that sticking a johnny on is a good move. Even the flippin' Pope agrees with me.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...inst-aids.html

 

I'm not a religious person at all but I am a person who takes science over religion because it makes practical sense but when Hawkins says things like this it goes to show that without the full story there is no real ground to prove what he is saying is true? he like all of use will find the truth one day when we are dead and buried.

Belief and personal interpretation of god causes wars and religion often fuels it, take a look at this thread and what you believe in and tell me your not fighting for it right now


"The Kingdom of God is inside you and all around you,
Not in a mansion of wood and stone.
Split a piece of wood and I am there,
Lift a stone and you will find me."

 

All those evil things that happen such as war, rape, paedophilia, murder and torture etc. are caused by people for their own selfish ambitions or lust.

Man is the sinner, what we understand as religions do not have those actions as part of their teachings.

Les

 

Oh yes they do - unless you choose to ignore the Old Testament, of course.

 

Les,
You chose to ignore my earlier question on this, and now you are essentially saying the same thing again!

Of course, I do agree that 'evil' acts are perpetrated by man, but then again , man wrote the Bible, not God......

Geezer

 

Of all the replies in this thread that I've read (I wouldn't waste a valuable saturday on any more), you've got it in a nutshell there. It really is as simple as that in my opinion, all the other considerations can be destroyed by what you've just said.

 

I did not really answer your question because I considered that it was not relevant to my personal beliefs.

I have not knowingly based my way of life on biblical teachings. My upbringing did not require a deep knowledge of the bible and my lifestyle does not stand or fall by it. Much of the way I think will be influenced by it to a degree however because of the effect its content will have on Christian religions.

I take a much more simple view and that is to live a decent life without injuring others unecessarily. I don't have to be told that by any publication, it just seems like common sense to me.

Not only was the bible written as you say but it one could even speculate on the accuracy of its translations if it comes to that. I don't know either way.

I have formulated my own very strong beliefs when it comes to a God, that is my private affair and I don't feel I need to discuss it with anybody. Nor do I think it is necessary to try to influence anyone else in my beliefs, and in the same way, I don't see why others should belittle me for that. I also think it is only fair to defend my style of thinking against those who would comment in a destructive manner.

As I have said often enough, we must follow our own conscience if we wish to be honest in our lifestyle.

It is undoubtedly objectionable when some sneer at the beliefs of other and try to knock them because they think differently. What are they trying to prove anyway. You believe what you want and let me do the same without any unpleasant hassle and life will go on smoothly enough. It seems to me that religious fanatics and rabid atheists are on the same sort of footing. Extreme behaviour is never the real answer.

As I have also said before, religious teachings advocate that we live what can be regarded as a good life with thought for others. You tell me...is that such a bad way to go through life?

People are not encouraged to be evil by such religions. You did agree that the evil things that do occur are instigated by Man for his own selfish purposes.

Les

 

There's nothing wrong with stating something is scientific yet the theory is not falsifiable as there are many instances as you've stated. However to then tack that argument onto religion is slightly unfair.

As I've said earlier it's up to people to decide and I'll respect that choice.

 

Deja vu.

https://www.scoobynet.com/719966-the...r-life-17.html

Post 492 onwards....and I never did get an answer.

 

Of all the thousands of different Gods in various cultures and relgions, would the real God please stand up!

 

Does it?

And?

Religion happened. To answer whether it was a construct or inspired by God would depend on one's understanding of the word God.

I'm of the view that science is a bloody good way of finding truths, that religions provide types of truth and that maybe a combination of the two may oneday reaveal The Truth.

 

Sure. How can you violate something which is innate? ...and if you can violate it then what use is 'innate' morality?


The point is that science if untethered by a morality could lead to all sorts of monstrous acts.

You're the one coming to this from a materialist POV. From that POV it must be a construct...but then what is science?

 

Don't get this bit. What materialist POV?

 

I mean the ontology, probably better called physicalism but I mean a narrow scientific view of reality....only matter/physical properties exist. So things like mind, spirit, belief, diety etc are seen as being wholey a function of physical properties.

You could go down the rabbit hole with this stuff....I'm just a dilettante.

 

Imagine all those humans that accept said gods are stood together in prayer. Imagine further that all of those humans have a mature and acute understanding of their particular god and that their relationship with it is conceptual, not supernatural. I'm stood with them:

They are praying to an anti-god, whilst I am praying to God; they are praying to nothing, as their gods do not exist; they are praying to the same God as I am, yet their understanding of its nature is partly incomplete, as is mine. I'd go with outcome three.

 

Ok, I'm with you. I guess all of my conceptions of spirit, soul, afterlife, creation and so forth are, indeed, rooted in the material. I can't really help that. Even where I entertain quasi-'wierd' ideas it'll be because quantum physics offers a plausible explanation. Do you have 'faith' in the supernatural?

 

I reckon they are all the same bloke.

Les

 

I would have said that was entirely to be expected JT, it is the major experience that we can use for comparison. Not many have had genuine spiritual moments I bet.

Les

 

Depends on which religion, a monotheist religion perhaps, but for polytheism with multiple deities, gods, godesses and demigods, they don't pray to one God, who's religion is right?

 

Nobody's religion is right, but some are more right than others.

 

To be honest it (ontology) is something I don't know much about. It's a very complex subject.

I need to read some Freud actually.

Here's the physicalism wiki page. It's worth a skim.

 

Yeah, it's the Hermetic idea of The Great Geometrician*; pandeism, I guess. Same kind of God-concept one may find in Rosicrucianism, Gnostic and esoteric Christianity. Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin talked about The Grand Architect of the Universe where primum movens (first cause) is God and then you have the notion of Christ the builder. Doesn't really require faith, does it?

* Blake did some good work around the idea.

http://www.topfloormusic.com/db/Ancient_of_Days/5525/

 

 

I strongly believe that it is the way you live your life which is really important. Most religions will set a good example how to do that.

Les

 

Absolutely.


Questionable. The major religions are quite restrictive and dicriminatory, so whilst there are many people who live a 'good life' and who believe in a God/gods, they doing that in spite of, not because of in most cases.

Geezer