How do I get to heaven? Answers to your questions on eternal life.

Kervork said:
And that's just some of the things scientists did to humans. If you're and animal it gets much worse.

Yes, tell me all about how science can provide us with morality.
Click to expand...

You are simply applying the scientific method wrong

What you are doing is exactly like saying that all food is horrible because you bought a bad meal a few times.

You don't get to throw out the millennia of proven scientific observation and tests because some guy somewhere at some point in time applied science towards his agenda. A gun can be used to save your life, but people murder people with them all the time, does that mean all guns are bad all the time?
 
"I'm gay for god" - It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia

If you're gay for God, you'll make it. Hence the whole thing about worshiping on your knees. Good luck.
 
Padawanbater2 said:
You are simply applying the scientific method wrong

What you are doing is exactly like saying that all food is horrible because you bought a bad meal a few times.

You don't get to throw out the millennia of proven scientific observation and tests because some guy somewhere at some point in time applied science towards his agenda. A gun can be used to save your life, but people murder people with them all the time, does that mean all guns are bad all the time?
Click to expand...
Not only that but he is conflating science with technology. Science is the pursuit of finding answers in nature. What we end up doing with those answers is always up to the individuals. I am currently reading The Moral Landscape by Harris and he makes some very compelling arguments as to how science can and should be used to determine our morality. No one, including Harris, has claimed that science is moral, only that it is a tool that is far better and more useful than religion in coming up with the best version of morality that we can do as humans. In this regard, religion has been an abject failure. The mere fact that people have to cherry pick the best parts and ignore the parts they intuitively understand is immoral is a clear indication of why religion is useless as a moral framework.

We don't kill each other because of the same reasons that piranha in a feeding frenzy don't eat each other and why bonobos and chimpanzees don't murder each other. We are cooperative and social by nature. These traits predate religion by millions of years. Religion was never the reason good people refrained from hurting others but it has been the reason that some good people have done very bad things to others.
 
Kervork said:
Correct, Eugenics is not a science, it is a social movement that was based on science, Darwinism to be exact. It attracted all number of scientists back in the day.

I think that most of the christians I know would not agree that they are good because god tells them to be. You seem to like putting words into the mouths of others.

The fact is that religion has been with us from the dawn of time. It is there because both religion and religious experience are a beneficial evolutionary adaptation. You would casually cast that off and claim that science can solve all our every day moral questions. Science has no process to address morality.
Click to expand...

You may want to take a look at the Sam Harris video above, it answers a lot of your questions, and is only 20 odd minutes long. It talks about morality as the intended harm, or benefit, of conscious creatures (our utopia being the height of human happiness and well being, and the worst case scenario being the deepest misery and suffering. If something is moral it is done to bring us closer to the utopia, and if immoral, it is done to bring us closer to the latter). We can all agree that fresh food is better for humans than poison, knowledge over ignorance, etc.. Science can and does bring about the conditions to create technology to better human existence. Morality has evolved in humans to more efficiently pass on our genes (the only intrinsic purpose of life). We evolved in tribes of about 150 members, and each member had a strong likelihood of sharing genes with the other tribe members. So, risking one's life for another member made sense biologically, since you were likely protecting your own shared genes. As societies grew larger and more complex, the chances of sharing genes with a stranger is quite low, but we still have the remnants of our older tribe mentality. So, we often still see people risk there lives for, or at least go out of there way to help, others. Hence, we have altruism. If science has no place in handling moral issues, religion has much, much less...

If it did, perhaps we wouldn't have developed nuclear weapons. If science had some sort of internal moral compass or process why do we have these obvious failures of morality in experimenting on human beings.
Click to expand...
.

Science showed us how to develop the technology to harness nuclear power. It is up to human beings to develop the technology to better humanity (clean, efficient nuclear reactors), or to harm it (nuclear weapons). The technology the scientific method brings about is not a moral issue or the responsibility of science, that onus is on human beings. Most technology developed from the scientific method can be a double-edged sword. As far as the immoral experimenting, that is done by immoral people misusing science. Even when sacrificing the few to save the many, most agree that this immoral as most of us don't want to live in a society in which we could be sacrificed to others.

The idea that some guy up in the sky is watching you and doesn't want you to kill people is still far advanced over any reason science can give to not kill people.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Cowering to a vengeful parental figure is not morality, and is a disgusting notion to a healthy adult human being. When my son does or doesn't do something for threat of being punished, that is simply self preservation and I am not impressed. When his actions are based on his inner sense of right and wrong regardless of the consequences to himself, he is being moral and I am proud.

.If anything, science suggests the planet is overpopulated and humans should be killed. Is that what we can expect from a culture who obtains it's morality from science?
Click to expand...

Not at all. Using science and technology, people are finding ways to feed, clothe, shelter, and educate more people using less land, money and resources. Ultimately, science and humanity is the only hope any life has to continue, as we will have to eventually leave this solar system before our sun dies out or goes nova. Religion, the supernatural, aliens, dolphins, chimps or cows will be of no help. Go Science, Go!
 
tyler.durden said:
Science showed us how to develop the technology to harness nuclear power. It is up to human beings to develop the technology to better humanity (clean, efficient nuclear reactors), or to harm it (nuclear weapons). The technology the scientific method brings about is not a moral issue or the responsibility of science, that onus is on human beings. Most technology developed from the scientific method can be a double-edged sword. As far as the immoral experimenting, that is done by immoral people misusing science.
Click to expand...

...the same can be said for spirituality, imo. "Most ideas developed from the scriptural method can be (and are clearly noted as) a double-edged sword. As far as the immoral experimenting, that is done by immoral people misusing scripture."

...k, are we even now? :lol:
 
eye exaggerate said:
...the same can be said for spirituality, imo. "Most ideas developed from the scriptural method can be (and are clearly noted as) a double-edged sword. As far as the immoral experimenting, that is done by immoral people misusing scripture."

...k, are we even now? :lol:
Click to expand...

There is no scriptural method. The scriptural method is; 'it's written in this book, so we believe it.' How lame of a method is that?

A better question, what method is there in doing that? That's just blindly reading, and believing something. If you're going to make an comparison, don't make it a non sequitur.

Science uses tests to check the validity of what it claims, hence 'scientific method'. If scripture was testable, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
 
Beefbisquit said:
There is no scriptural method. The scriptural method is 'it's written here, so we believe it.'

What method is there in that? That's just blindly reading, and believing something. If you're going to make an comparison, don't make it a non sequitur.

Science uses tests to check the validity of what it claims, hence 'scientific method'. If scripture was testable, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Click to expand...

...I know the whats and hows, man :) "Taste" is experience, scripturally speaking. It means to experience life, to experiment with the good.

(remember that science = a great necessity as far as I am concerned)




...I really didn't intend on making a serious post, but hey :)
 
A) The Historical-Critical Method

Questions Typically Asked:

Composition History Questions

Who is the author of the work? What do we know about him/her/them?
Is the attributed author the actual author, or is the work pseudepigraphic?
When, where, and under what circumstances was the work written?
Who were the original recipients? Where did they live?

Traditional Literary Criticism

What words are used, and what range of meanings do they have?
What images and symbols are used, and what do they signify?
What characters appear in the story? What do we know about them?
How are the characters related to one another in the story?

Comparison of Translations

Are there any significant differences between various modern translations?
When were these translations done, using which translation philosophies?
Which ancient Hebrew or Greek texts underlie the various translations?
Has anything been lost or obscured in the process of translation?

Textual Criticism

Are there any variant readings in the ancient manuscripts?
Are the variants negligible (mere spelling) or significant (affecting meaning)?
Can the variants be explained as intentional changes, or as accidental ones?
How do the literary or historical contexts help explain the variant readings?

Source Criticism

Does the text have any underlying source or sources?
Which version of a source was used, in case there is more than one?
What do the sources actually say and mean in their original contexts?
How are the sources used (quoted, paraphrased, adapted?) in the later text?

Form Criticism

What is the literary form or “genre” of the whole work and the particular text?
Does the text follow or diverge from the usual expectations for this genre?
What is the normal purpose/goal of this genre?
In what social context would texts of this genre have been used?

Redaction Criticism

How has the author used the source(s) in shaping this text?
Are there any parallel texts, and how is this text similar and/or different?
What particular views or theological emphases does this author show?
How did the author’s life circumstances affect the shaping of the text?

Socio-Historical Criticism

If the story claims to be historical, what really happened?
What social, historical, or cultural information can be gleaned from the text?
What background information is necessary to better understand the text?
What was life like for the common people, not just the ruling elites?

B) New Methods of Literary Analysis

Questions Typically Asked:

Rhetorical Analysis

What message is the author trying to convey?
Is the author attempting to instruct, inspire, defend, or persuade the reader?
What rhetorical techniques does he use to achieve his goals?

Narrative Analysis

Who are the characters in the story? What roles do they play?
What is the plot sequence? What narrative time is covered?
What is the author’s and/or narrator’s point of view?

Semiotic Analysis

What deeper patterns of meaning are conveyed by the words and symbols?

C) Approaches Based on Tradition

Questions Typically Asked:

Canonical Approach

Where does this text belong in the literary context of the entire Bible?
How is this text related to prior texts and/or later texts in the Bible?
How does its location in the Canon affect the meaning of this text?

Using Jewish Interpretative Traditions

How do traditional Jewish methods of interpretation read this text?
Are there any parallel or similar stories in Rabbinic literature?
Do Jewish and Christian interpretations of this text differ significantly?

History of Interpretation
(Wirkungsgeschichte)

How was this text interpreted by the “Church Fathers” and in later centuries?
Is the text interpreted differently by various churches and denominations?
How has the text been interpreted in art, music, liturgy, and popular culture?

D) Apps. Using the Human Sciences

Questions Typically Asked:

Sociological Approach

What insights from Sociology can help in the interpretation of the text?
What patterns of human social behavior are evident in the text?

Cultural Anthropology Approach

What models from Cultural Anthropology can help us understand the text?
What cultural presuppositions/patterns affect the interpretation of the text?


Psychological/Psychoanalytical Apps.

How can the text be interpreted using various theories from Psychology?
Can the text help us understand the human psyche better?

E) Contextual Approaches

Questions Typically Asked:

Liberationist Approach

Has this text been used for domination of oppressed people? How?
Can this text be used for the liberation of the poor/disadvantaged? How?
Can other texts counteract the detrimental effects of oppressive texts?

Feminist Approach

Does the text evidence gender bias? Was later interpretation also biased?
How is the meaning of the text affected if read from a feminist perspective?
What other texts can be recovered and used to balance out biased texts?
 
The answer to every question lies within. Seeking without is a distraction that the dark forces are masters at manipulating

Jesus said Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven, which lies within, and, Greater things than these shall ye do

Looking for answers in the pineal, mind, or chakra systems, are diversions from the truth, perpetrated by the dark forces.

Work from your heart. Meditate from your heart. Bring your spirit and love out to cleanse the world of darkness.
 
Are you saying that science is bad or wrong because sometimes people use it for the wrong reasons? LMFAO! Then get the fuck off your computer and go dig a hole with a stick or something.
 
Kervork said:
The bulk of scripture seems to tell us common sense things. Love your neighbor, don't kill, don't steal. Yes, there is some stupid shit left in there from a time when we were violent and ignorant but 99% of the followers of a religion accept that as historical crap and they don't run around killing nonbelivers and people who sleep with goats.

What exactly is science telling us? That the quest for knowledge trumps human life?
Click to expand...



The bulk of scripture tells us bat shit crazy stories,humans are still violent and ignorant especially many of those who read scripture.99% of the followers of any given religion you say?what about the extreme fundamentalists?There are plenty of those lurking within your 99% estimate,just look at the likes of Westboro and Muslim jihadists,granted Westboro hasnt started killing people yet,but there views are harsh and inhuman,They still live in that ancient malevolent fossil of a world that toutes extreme violence in the name if their god and if they for some reason start to think or believe their God is telling them to kill people,odds are it will happen.

lol @Kervork its almost as if you want to vilify science itself,how foolish yet amusing,the quest for knowledge through the scientific method is of sound ethic, as there are no blind favoritisms to its principles.Its when you get people who are corrupted or demented that are actualy intelligent ,using their knowledge to facilitate their own twisted ends do we see such disregard for human life.Because there is actualy a great regard for the lives of humankind through scientists, it is part of the reason why the majority scientists use lab rats or other animals for experimentation and testing before human application is rendered.
 
eye exaggerate said:
...the same can be said for spirituality, imo. "Most ideas developed from the scriptural method can be (and are clearly noted as) a double-edged sword. As far as the immoral experimenting, that is done by immoral people misusing scripture."

...k, are we even now? :lol:
Click to expand...

Name 5 positive things that devoutly practicing religion has brought us.
 
kpmarine said:
Name 5 positive things that devoutly practicing religion has brought us.
Click to expand...

...would you like me to cite some examples for a positive reason? Or will you be countering with the atrocities?

Zaehet Strife said:
Are you saying that science is bad or wrong because sometimes people use it for the wrong reasons? LMFAO! Then get the fuck off your computer and go dig a hole with a stick or something.
Click to expand...
 
eye exaggerate said:
...would you like me to cite some examples for a positive reason? Or will you be countering with the atrocities?
Click to expand...

I'm just curious if you can name 5 positive things religion has given us that a secular man could not. I'm talking Penicillin-caliber positive; not "I saw john help an old lady across the street." positive things. Not that religion gave us basic human decency.
 
kpmarine said:
I'm just curious if you can name 5 positive things religion has given us that a secular man could not. I'm talking Penicillin-caliber positive; not "I saw john help an old lady across the street." positive things. Not that religion gave us basic human decency.
Click to expand...

...that is a complicated question, but thanks for reformatting. There is no tangible thing, it is a congregation (he!) of concepts that help form a better worldview. Those 5 things could be anything, at any given point in time. An image forms in the minds of people, that image crystalizes before becoming a tangible thing. It starts as a longing for something better, I suppose. Science can fulfill those images in the material sense, but never has been the thought itself. Another problem is that I don't put science up to religion and compare (or vice versa). They were, and should be, in harmony. I just don't get why they're put against each other, sorry :)
 
eye exaggerate said:
...that is a complicated question, but thanks for reformatting. There is no tangible thing, it is a congregation (he!) of concepts that help form a better worldview. Those 5 things could be anything, at any given point in time. An image forms in the minds of people, that image crystalizes before becoming a tangible thing. It starts as a longing for something better, I suppose. Science can fulfill those images in the material sense, but never has been the thought itself. Another problem is that I don't put science up to religion and compare (or vice versa). They were, and should be, in harmony. I just don't get why they're put against each other, sorry :)
Click to expand...


They are incompatible because (as Neer often brings up) science is all about test, and religion cannot bring anything to test to the table. When religion makes fact claims that are erroneous (all of them?), science easily refutes them with facts that are incompatible with the dogma. Religion wants to be friends with science, but science attempts to stay away from religion. Why is that?

[video=youtube;dg2K_n9ns5U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dg2K_n9ns5U[/video]
 
eye exaggerate said:
...that is a complicated question, but thanks for reformatting. There is no tangible thing, it is a congregation (he!) of concepts that help form a better worldview. Those 5 things could be anything, at any given point in time. An image forms in the minds of people, that image crystalizes before becoming a tangible thing. It starts as a longing for something better, I suppose. Science can fulfill those images in the material sense, but never has been the thought itself. Another problem is that I don't put science up to religion and compare (or vice versa). They were, and should be, in harmony. I just don't get why they're put against each other, sorry :)
Click to expand...

In a better world, that might be how it worked, organized religion was there to guide and all the hate was ignored, that's how I would like it to be. But if I could add why I think science and religion clash, it's because religion makes claims that science proves false. Proving a claim false that was said to be the absolute truth presents problems in other areas of your dogma; if that was false, what else is false? When it comes to an easy choice to make, like treating homosexuals like any other person or treating them how the Westboro Baptists treat them, and the force is so great that it clouds their judgment, that's when it moves into hostile territory. The nature of science is to improve, and many non believers today believe that should be the ultimate pursuit, improve our species. The nature of organized religion is to deceive people into false belief at the expense of improvement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top