This is the point I was making with my earlier questions. It is still considered immoral in some societies for women to show themselves in public...how absurd we consider it, and yet it's still practiced in other countries.
This is the point I was making with my earlier questions. It is still considered immoral in some societies for women to show themselves in public...how absurd we consider it, and yet it's still practiced in other countries.
But truth, Hajjaj was convinced, held many layers.
Believing a thing immoral, believing in God, and acting on those beliefs is easily distinguished by restraint and discernment. The issue will eventually boil down to whether or when should a belief be acted upon. I believe a lot of things are right and wrong yet I don't act so as to get along in society. Such seems the basis of our justice system. Responsibility for one's actions.Quote by: Senor Hoint
If one were to act on belief in God then would he have to abide by what he perceives to be God's plan for him? Is that better than admitting to him/herself that there is no god and we are on our own? I think not when the understanding is of the type that would allow sharia law or Christian theonomy into the authoritative practice of civil law that would allow voodoo, er, prayer for sick children.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Well, if you mean that religious beliefs shouldn't affect public policy...then yeah, I agree with that. I'm just making a point about morality being subjective. Not all cultures have the same morals.
But truth, Hajjaj was convinced, held many layers.
Hell, more to the point even the different groups of a single religion have the same morals.
I'm with you. I was pointing, maybe waving, in the direction that religious belief providing authority to actions in the name of a deity are objectionable because of supernatural belief's subjectiveness. Belief in God is not unreasonable until such a believer's actions based on those beliefs intrudes on those who find no God in which to believe.
Last edited by minorwork; 7th May 2011 at 02:18 AM.
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
is that why athiests deny god?
Yes.
theres no scientific evidence for logic and mathematics.theres no scientific evidence for science itself
Logic is a word humans have created to describe things that don't contradict each other, and mathematics is a system humans have created to judge things quantitatively. God is also a human creation, but neither logic nor mathematics claims to do the illogical.
specifically what is illogical about belief in god?
Claims of God's deeds as presented by the Abrahamic religions's defy the scientific system we have now, a system that works harmoniously with everything we can observe, and which works harmoniously with mathematic principles on things that are more difficult to observe. Furthermore, there is no evidence of these deeds, and there are too many religions with too many different concepts of God for it to be homogenized and assumed to be real.
god is the most rational conclusion for the beginning of the universe
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks