Do candles also get you out of doing penance?

Votive candles are a symbol that you're praying for someone. The donation box is just to pay for the candle, really.

Sicarius, I have a hard time decerning what a perfect human being would be, and so I don think the words imperfect and perfect can be applied. I was saying that the christian idea of perfection, sinless, is flawed sins things which are called sins are nothing but societal constructs, not that all those are bad.

*is flawed since things

On that whole religion versus science, reason versus faith subject:


I take neither side, each has equal possible validity. We know no facts for certain save that we know no facts for certain. Therefore scientific "facts" are just as dubious as religious teachings. Which in turn means that neither are very dubious, since surely something more exists than just my own mind. Or maybe my own mind is all there is. There is absolutely no way to tell, and so I always tire of the "science is better than religion here's why" argument or even just when I see in someone's wording that they appear to trust science. Why trust science, our own, weak understanding? There are so many different ways that it may not be true. Most sound ridiculous, but only because we dare not doubt our "discovered truth."

Science is the new religion, evolutionism the new creationism. Science is mythology. Atheism is theism. The nomenclature is different, nothing more. Instead of the Bible as truth people read Scientific American. Yes, I know the heart of science is skepticism, but honestly, how many counterexamples to this ideal exist? Countless mainstream theories accepted far and wide only to be proven wrong. Theories that are today in vogue were at their inception scoffed at by "the scientific community" because they seemed ridiculous. Skepticism indeed. The God of Science is as dogmatic and fundamentalist as any Christian or Muslim.

Wow, this is turning into quite the heated discussion. I'm a lutheran. I'm not sure what valoishapsburg is trying to say but 'societal constructs' as he put it are sins. It's just that todays world has accepted that as a normal way of life and can't face the fact they are a sinner and need help from god, the one who is perfect and can forgive our sins. Yes, christians strive to please god but no one can come even close.
The way I look at it is that from every religion (atheism included) the point of view on life makes sense. It's definitely possible there is a higher being, it makes sense that there could have been a 'Big Bang' and the world was made, and there could be a Huge Giant Turkey living in the amazon rainforest that controls every aspect of your life. But the differenece between me as a lutheran is that if i'm wrong, I have nothing to lose, whereas if I was an atheist and I was wrong I'd end up in hell. I know it's not the best way to look at things but often when people are about to die they are scared into believing that there is a God because they don't want to be in hell.

"the one thing we know it that we know nothing"

..yes.. this is an undeniable truth, the only one for that matter, what about it?

By the way Kibby, I used to think that way but... what if Islam is true and not Christianity? The only card I had left to play was, "well at least it's consistent with my culture and upbringing" so I went with that. I acknowledge its full fallability though.

what Im saying is that they are sins because society says they are. One thing may be considered a sin in one culture and be completely accepted in another. Therefore whether it is good or bad depends on the culture. The bible, one of various sacred texts, seems more to describe a culture than anything else. Why would God say to not eat swine? Perhaps because the people knew they would make you sick.

Thucydides makes a valid point about Islam.

I do believe in religion, just not any organized religion. I would place myself more towards diesm than anything else.

To believe that a sin in one culture isn't a sin in another in absolute terms means that you must also believe in moral relativism. Some of us just can't stomach that.

I dont think they are bad. I dont believe that they are sins however, but anyone who chooses to believe more power to you. If society saws that killing is wrong, for whatever reason that idea emerges, i'm all for it. Especially since I am part of the society. My point was not that morality or most bounds set by a culture are bad. My point was that I think it can be ARGUED that they are just that, bounds set by society, not divinely inspired law.

This has descended into a silly rant on moral theory. If bounds are set by society, then there are no bounds. That's what Nietzsche really meant by "God is dead."

Man needs God because without a higher purpose and divine order we're just clever monkeys running around without real consequences.

> Man needs God because without a higher purpose and divine
> order we're just clever monkeys running around without real
> consequences.
Speak for yourself :-/ If you would do immoral things if you didn't feel God looking down on you then you're an immoral person. I think you underestimate yourself and humanity

> Theories that are today in vogue were at their inception scoffed
> at by "the scientific community" because they seemed
> ridiculous. Skepticism indeed
Getting it wrong and revising their ideas based on new evidence is proof science is the same as religion? Surely that shows exactly how it's /different/ to religion

Thucydides, I realize that in the end, science is probably very immature in it's understanding of the universe, and we are ever constrained by our limited senses...

But think of this. If all thought systems are equally possible, then on what basis should we choose our thought system? Well, I think it's easy to see the merits of science... it's the one that lets us soar 30000 feet into the air, battle disease, and play Diplomacy online. If they are equally possible, then I would choose the one that has consistently offered the most capability, which is science. Religion is not increasing our life spans or improving the standard of living, science is.

Invictus, God doesn't give us our morals, simple societal constraints do. We can't all murder, rape, and steal with impunity because no society can exist with all criminal citizens. And when like minded individuals band together to work together for their mutual well beings they institute a law and punish murder, rape, and theft so that they may continue to co-exist and reap the pragmatic gains of co-operative action.

If you read the old and new testament, and listen to preachers today, you might notice that they will select handfuls of passages that they feel are most relevant to today's issues. They will ignore the more arcane passages that condone the murder of your neighbours or the owning of slaves or the ones that forbid the ingestion of shellfish, etc. However, clearly these passages were at one time morally relevant, and historically we find that slavery was once not considered immoral, and that eating shellfish was also considered immoral though it is not today. As our moral attitudes change with time, different passages of the bible are quoted to show that we get our morals from religion, but can't you see? It's our shifting morals that shape our interpretation of religion, it isn't religion that shapes our morals.

You don't need an absolute power to show you that you shouldn't murder. If you don't know that you shouldn't murder already, then you'll find the vengeance of your victim's relatives is quite adequate deterrence.

Sent from: Chrispminis (992 ) Sent: 10:50 PM
Sioraf... I have no idea where to start... you tote logic and philosophy as weapons but you've been wounding your argument with them more than you've been helping them. Do you have any education in logic or philosophy?
=============================================
But only ONE of my philosophies is being criticised and at the age of 16 I'm just doing my best because they don't teach philosophy to 16 year olds so I have to read about philosophy and then form my philosophical beliefs. Furthermore being only a lapsed Catholic my philosophies are nearly all to do with society.

WOW - This thread is amzingly long. I wanna jon in. I cannot find any believers of Asa faith. Nordic polytheism with Thor and Odin.
My wiew: all religions are lies. But usefull for controlling dumb people.

That's way oversimplicised.

no not really

If there is no God, the world is just materialistic and morals are an illusion. Talking about society constraints is making bricks without straw. There's nothing to back those morals up. To quote another great person, "there is no such thing as society," anyway.

Humans are intelligent social animals. We naturally create morals to help us survive. Our morals are a reflection of our nature, which is shaped by our genetics. Morals help us to cooperate with each other. Culture shapes these morals too, and that is why we see some variation; but even between different cultures (and religions) morals are more similar than dissimilar. I am an atheist but I am as moral as any religious person. Where does my morality come from without religion? Simple. Its just the way I am, like most people.

"Religion is not increasing our life spans or improving the standard of living, science is."

False statement. Religions do as much for people as science does, and science springs from religious tradition. St. Lukes, Methodist hospital and the like all founded by Christians. So tha increases life span. Increasing standard of living: Buddhist Bhutan enforces Buddhist law and morals, improving the quality of life. Hizbullah helped rebuild devastated Lebanon after the 2005 war. Science is not better than the religion. Religion is not better than science. The reason is that they are the same thing. Science and christianity have as much in common as Buddhism and Islam. It is nearly impossible that both are true, and still very unlikely that either are true.

Yes, science gives us the Internet and the like. There is much though, that science fails in. Science alone, if it ruled, would ruin us. Without morals, no laws would be obeyed. Without compassion or emotion, people would become depressed. Without a sense of faith and supernatural security (as humans have always believed in the mystical), people would become even more dangerously depressed.

Science alone would be catastrophic as a belief system, as would any other one system. Look at catholic Europe a millenium ago. Religion can pacify the people as a whole and individually, offering a peace and presence of mind not seen in science.

You may think I am, then, defending faith and religion. I am not. What I want both sides in this argument to see is that YOU ARE BOTH WRONG. No one among us is correct about the state of things. I guarantee it. Honestly what are the chances, especially with such diverse beliefs across the world, that you belief is right? Nill. I doubt any human being has ever known the truth, if there even are such things as human beings. Science-lovers, you are nothing more than religionists. Fundamentalists, the scientists you loathe are a mirror for your own misguiding. The fallacies you point out, creationists, in the the evolution arguments are as poignant against creationism as evolutionism.

If there is one thing I have observed in my short (but ever longer) life, it is this: No matter how indestructible a belief system may seem, there is always some counterpoint that seems completely to deconstruct the theory. We as humans, in beliefs we espouse, are totally 100% self-contradictory. I have reached the conclusion after a while that believing anything in the normal sense of belief means you merely have to overlook a lot of glaring errors. There is no perfectly constructed belief system. All of you who believe anything, you must know this if you think about it. You don't have to admit, if you don't want, to save face, but if you honestly give it a fair share of unbiased thought, you will realize that whatever belief you hold is probably wrong, and that everyone else is probably wrong as well.

Morals exist because we create them. They don't need to have a mythical being's backing for them to be used. They exist only because we are empathic and driven beings, ones that naturally create systems to further our understanding.

As you said though 'morals are an illusion'. Its society that backs the morals. Thats why they evolve and are recreated and redefined with society's evolution. Its why 200 years ago actually owning black people was considered just. Its why in parts of the world its acceptable to stone homosexuals. Morals are created and modified over time.

I also agree that talking about society's constraints is making bricks without straw. Considering we would be unable to live in a society where everybody stole, murdered, raped and vandalised. Its more comparable to making bricks out of mortar :P

More on Chrispminis's call for logic and philosophy:

THANK YOU! I studied logic and moral/social philosophy in undergraduate and i think you made some very good points. You missed a key point in the first set of premises.

"Premise. We humans are imperfect.
Premise. There must be an underlying balance to our imperfection.
Conclusion: There must be a perfect being to balance out human perfection, this being is God."

The problem is that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. even if premises 1) and 2) are correct, you have only proven that there exists a balancing force. Calling the balancing force "god" would mean that it would be different from the standard monotheistic god that is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent/perfectly good. If you were trying to prove the existence of the Tao, this might work, but I don't think that was the objective.

In the words of Voltaire:
"If god did not exist we would have to create him"
"I have no morals yet I am a very moral person"

@Thucydides: Are you really suggesting that Catholic Europe a millenium ago was a peaceful and content place?

in also the words of voltaire a witty saying proves nothing

I figured his two statements summarised two of the general arguments making them relevant :P