Discussion in 'Religion' started by Seattle, Apr 7, 2019.
I was referring more to the thread on sciforums.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Justice (the premise for your "kindness") is one thing. The legal system is another. Ask anyone who works within 10ft of the legal system.
Silly, isn't it?
Then, if one is vouching that there is nothing higher than the individual development of higher qualities (as opposed to the attainment to a sphere where it is the norm and not, as our current experience dictates, the exception) it begs the question whether there can be regulative principles, formalities etc that help foster higher qualities.
For instance, does something like marriage have a reasonable potential to help individuals foster higher qualities?
There was an atheist guffawing thread? I missed that. Please provide link.
No, philosophy isn’t about making positive connections, it’s about imaging such connections. You don’t make positive connections with actual things without engaging in actual investigations of these things.
To the degree that something can be empirically demonstrated or supported determines how it’s ranked in regards to it’s validity. Demonstrated connections with supernatural deities doesn’t even register on this scale.
The basis I mentioned above.
A religious authority would have to demonstrate that their claims of divine contact were either empirically testable, or distinguishable from human imagination. In other words, at least what you might expect in a court of law.
What does the appreciation or lack thereof of an architectural relic have to do with demonstrating divine reality?
About atheist and harbouring unrealistic standards
OK so let's take off the table swapping the pyramids with the statue of Liberty
Mumbles - would have been easy for a entity who created the Universe in 6 days
So to all/any theist what do you have in mind which would meet a realistic standard?
How about any of those in the book? Flip through the book and pick one, tee it up with the boss, organise the venue and get the T shirts printed
Should be a sell out crowd with the certainty of thousands of converts the likes of which Billy could only dream of
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You are just utilizing philosophy but choosing to call it something else. Making a whole out of parts, or taking a whole down to parts (or to put it even more simply, seeing the relationship between things) is the essence of the rumination process.
Only when you are talking about empiricism, otherwise its bollocks
If you have ever taken your car to mechanic, accepted professional legaladvice, undergone a medical proceedure or caught a plane without requiring to bust into the cockpit to check that the pulot knows what they are doing, you are in staunch ageeement with the before-mentioned.
Then your basis is unreasonable. Much like visiting a mechanic, lawyer, doctor or airport, you don't establish credibility with empiricism in this regard.
Demonstrate to who, exactly?
Even in the case of law, reasonable doubt is determined by particular individuals.
Nothing ar all.
But one can't help notice atheists who criticize theists for having a sky daddy, and in the same breath criticize God for not doing His half of the deal (at least, the duty they imagine a rightful God should possess) inadvertently reveal something about their own core beliefs about the relationship between God, the living entity and this world .. ..
It's kind of like requiring a second caricature un order to get a good laugh at the first one.
What good is "kindness" if it doesn't come from the heart? You could build a religion on the word, and it would still be empty.
Just fake it till you make it, baby!
It wasn't proposed as a religion; it was proposed instead of religion.
Kindness, for starters, is a whole lot cheaper.
There is a difference.
So much better when you can save a dollar?
Dude! Spin doctor much?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So much better when someone isn't charging you taxes for your own actions.
You are always free to offer your kindness free of charge.
Show me. Even if the difference between non-heartfelt kindness and heartfelt kindness is evident to the recipoient, it's nothing to the difference between unheartfelt kindness and heartfelt condemnation.
For comparable benefit, you betcha! For palpable benefit compared to theoretical benefit, quadruple it.
The question was, after all, what does religion do for mankind, not what else can mankind do besides religion.
That's kind of the point of this thread, no?
It can feed the hungry, clothe the naked.
The thread is comparing religion and kindness.
The point is: what can religion do what simply being kind can't.
You pointed out that one can always be kind of their own free will.
So, why do we need to pay a tithe to other people to tell us when, where and how to be kind.
Religion might help you find it.
It's meaningless when it doesn't come from the heart. That applies whether it's done under threat or for advantage. Do I donate to charity to help others or for a tax write off?
You don't, but I can see how a religion might spring up from the worship of kindness.
There are three things posted on this thread as possibilities - if anyone actually cares.
Separate names with a comma.