{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
originally posted in:Secular Sevens
8/27/2013 4:32:27 PM
2
[quote]the historical and anthropological evidence of their faith,[/quote]
I have yet to be presented with this stuff from unbiased sources explicitly admitting that the evidence they've uncovered is unexplainable through means other than divine intervention. I'm not saying that there isn't evidence for the existence of people and events, but it's justified when skeptics begin to doubt the validity of supposed miracles and other divine occurrences.
English
-
go research lee strobel, a man who set out to prove Christianity wrong.
-
Edited by HurtfulTurkey: 8/27/2013 8:45:52 PMThere is no such thing as an objective religious text. They each explain a series of largely historical events through the perspective of the culture that wrote it. From there you examine other sources to determine if evidence corroborates the texts, sort of like a fingerprint. But as far as wisdom texts, there's no way to scientifically prove that. I can't prove that murder is wrong. I can point to various patterns of societies, or make hypotheses about how certain behavior is conducive to a thriving society, but fundamentally we don't currently have an objective way to derive morality.
-
Morals come from the bible.
-
i had morals even before i read the bible...
-
you aren't born with morals you know. As you get older you understand what's right and wrong to do, and we get that from the bible.
-
i didn't read the bible until my late teens. i had morals before that.
-
the bible put into place the morals out country had since the founding fathers came to America.
-
He has a point. I see where you're coming from, but there are many ways to feed a horse, as they say. While the Bible contains many commonly accepted morals that I agree with, there are those who have no belief in God that are very morally sound without it. My half-sister and I share nearly the same exact set of morals, but she's agnostic and I'm a Christian. Just trying to clarify.
-
not the bible. none of the things this country was founded on are uniquely christian ideals. christianity shares many teachings with various other religions and philosophies.
-
It was there first though. And most of the founding fathers were protestant/christian, so they began this country with many christian ideals.
-
what christian ideals was this country founded on that aren't found in any other religion or philosophy?
-
Thats beside the point. I said the bible and Christianity was before all the other religions so its ideals were original. They dont seem like it now cause there are so many religions that do some things similarly.
-
[quote]Thats beside the point. [/quote]no, it really isn't. stop dodging my questions. [quote]the bible and Christianity was before all the other religions[/quote]this is demonstrably false.
-
-
Murder isn't wrong. Society pretends it is but it's natural. We killed off the Neanderthals.
-
-
You really didn't address the main point of my post.
-
Edited by HurtfulTurkey: 8/28/2013 12:59:55 AMI must've misunderstood what that was then, sorry. I agree that it's reasonable (and correct) to be skeptical of miraculous or divine claims.
-
[quote]I can't prove that murder is wrong. I can point to various patterns of societies, or make hypotheses about how certain behavior is conducive to a thriving society, but fundamentally we don't currently have an objective way to derive morality.[/quote]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism
-
Edited by HurtfulTurkey: 8/27/2013 8:59:39 PMYes, I understand that. The point I made is that we cannot use the scientific method to evaluate these moral rules, even if they are supposedly derived logically. To do so I'd imagine you'd need to observe identical human cultures under various moral codes, with a control group. I suppose our current society would be a good control group, since as far as we know we haven't been influenced from an outside society. And even then, what criterion are used for determining which is correct? Longevity? Scientific progress? Wealth? Murder rate? Average lifespan? What about artistic progress, or cultural diversity? I agree that, given sufficient data, you could derive axioms for every imaginable subject. But the world, and the universe is too stochastic for us to accomplish this in any reasonable timeframe.
