Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
If someone believes in a God how can he/she truly think outside the box with the limitations of his/her believe?
By rejecting religion as a source of eternal truth. Religion is to many a source of moral codes. That does not conflict with science and is precisely why Einstein advocated religion next to science. Pure science is without morals, amoral if you will. Research and application without morality is pure evil. Which isn't to say religion should provide said moral guidance, of course. (Any set of moral codes which fits within our idea of right and wrong will do.)
Ask Wybo if you want someone with a good head on his shoulders. He is religious and scientific.
Morality does not come from religion, religion was based upon morality.
Go to the States and do a little research. You'll be surprised by the percentage that believes in creationism and by the number who don't accept evolution.
Exactly. Why would pure science be amoral? Pure science only becomes amoral when you lose your human touch.
I'm not, as I know that :)
I find it funny that two people tend to reply on one word out of my post (the word many lol)
I find it funny that two people tend to reply on one word out of my post (the word many lol)
Armenians killed 13 years old girl with bomb in the toy
A criminal case has been filed into the case of the murder of a 13-year-old girl in the Tovuz region of Azerbaijan by Armenians, the embassy told Trend.
A case was filed under the Article 120.2.12 (premeditated murder motivated by ethnic, racial, or religious hatred or enmity) of the Criminal Code of Azerbaijan, Tovuz Regional Prosecutor Office’s Investigator Asif Allahverdiyev told trend.az
An investigation is underway, he added.
A terrible accident took place in the Alibayli village of Azerbaijan's Tovuz district, bordering Armenia. The blast of an explosive device killed a 13-year-old girl, Aygun Shahmaliyeva, and heavily wounded her 32-year-old mother Elnara Shahmaliyeva in the hip.
A toy dog was loaded with an explosive device and dropped by the Armenian side into the Tovuz River, flowing through the Alibeyli village.
Elsevar Jafarov and Aygun Shahmaliyeva were playing near the river and brought the toy to the house of Hasan Jafarov. Aygun Shahmaliyeva put the toy on the table at home, setting off and detonating the device.
The Shahmaliyev family and relatives live in Russia, St. Petersburg. They came to visit their relatives in the Alibayli village.
The Tovuz prosecutor's office is investigating the incident for more information.
A similar incident occurred in the region in 1994, when two young children were killed and one wounded after a toy from Armenia exploded.
The case was initiated under Art. 120.2.12 (premeditated murder motivated by ethnic, racial or religious hatred or enmity) of the Criminal Code of Azerbaijan and is currently under investigation, the Investigator Tovuz Asif Allahverdiyev told Trend.az
(edited)
(edited)
A criminal case has been filed into the case of the murder of a 13-year-old girl in the Tovuz region of Azerbaijan by Armenians, the embassy told Trend.
A case was filed under the Article 120.2.12 (premeditated murder motivated by ethnic, racial, or religious hatred or enmity) of the Criminal Code of Azerbaijan, Tovuz Regional Prosecutor Office’s Investigator Asif Allahverdiyev told trend.az
An investigation is underway, he added.
A terrible accident took place in the Alibayli village of Azerbaijan's Tovuz district, bordering Armenia. The blast of an explosive device killed a 13-year-old girl, Aygun Shahmaliyeva, and heavily wounded her 32-year-old mother Elnara Shahmaliyeva in the hip.
A toy dog was loaded with an explosive device and dropped by the Armenian side into the Tovuz River, flowing through the Alibeyli village.
Elsevar Jafarov and Aygun Shahmaliyeva were playing near the river and brought the toy to the house of Hasan Jafarov. Aygun Shahmaliyeva put the toy on the table at home, setting off and detonating the device.
The Shahmaliyev family and relatives live in Russia, St. Petersburg. They came to visit their relatives in the Alibayli village.
The Tovuz prosecutor's office is investigating the incident for more information.
A similar incident occurred in the region in 1994, when two young children were killed and one wounded after a toy from Armenia exploded.
The case was initiated under Art. 120.2.12 (premeditated murder motivated by ethnic, racial or religious hatred or enmity) of the Criminal Code of Azerbaijan and is currently under investigation, the Investigator Tovuz Asif Allahverdiyev told Trend.az
(edited)
(edited)
By rejecting religion as a source of eternal truth. Religion is to many a source of moral codes. That does not conflict with science and is precisely why Einstein advocated religion next to science. Pure science is without morals, amoral if you will. Research and application without morality is pure evil. Which isn't to say religion should provide said moral guidance, of course. (Any set of moral codes which fits within our idea of right and wrong will do.)
This post is very well written and I agree with it until the last part in (). This is much more easier to say than do. Religion deals exactly with this issue of "our common idea of right and wrong". It is very naive and even dangerous to claim that we can easily agree on this and follow through. That is exactly what leads to misunderstaning between different religious orientations. Practicing religion in fact means practicing our morality. This is a lifelong task and it is definately not simple nor easy.
This post is very well written and I agree with it until the last part in (). This is much more easier to say than do. Religion deals exactly with this issue of "our common idea of right and wrong". It is very naive and even dangerous to claim that we can easily agree on this and follow through. That is exactly what leads to misunderstaning between different religious orientations. Practicing religion in fact means practicing our morality. This is a lifelong task and it is definately not simple nor easy.
Morality does not come from religion, religion was based upon morality.
This is another chicken and egg question really. And, if religion was based upon morality, how could it be wrong then?
This is another chicken and egg question really. And, if religion was based upon morality, how could it be wrong then?
Religion can easily be wrong. Religious fundamentalism is always wrong (I don't say all religion is fundamentalist!) The moral behind is most of the time right (you won't find anyone who disapproves tolerance, charity, ...).
If you say only religion is able to provide moral guidance, that would in effect mean that those without religion, are without moral codes. That is evidently not true. There are very common sets of non-religious moral codes. They are often found in most religions as well, but the main argument to support said codes is based on a completely different justification. The code is not acceptable, compelling even, because it is a code from a religion, but because the code in and by itselfs is right. For example, almost any set of codes has a code regarding killing children. The difference lies in the fact that the islamic person might justify the code as it is 'from the holy book'. The other person, without religion, knows the code and likes it because it is unfair to kill a child which cannot defend itself and because it would threaten the survival of its parents genes. Religion provides a complete set of codes, but always asks its followers not to question any of the codes. And that is precisely why I cannot allow religion to rule my life - even though I strongly believe in 'something up there'. When I see a catholic person advocate against abortion, even if the mother is raped or when the child is so deformed it would never be able to survive, I cannot but say that is wrong. Gay marriage, same story. Religion is a package deal when it comes to moral issues. In the end I have reason. I do not believe it is good not to use it and not live by what I, personally, find acceptable.
Religion is a package deal when it comes to moral issues. In the end I have reason.
You'd be surprised how man Catholics have own reason as well and disagree/disact with what church says.
The sad part is that this makes them non-Catholics.
You'd be surprised how man Catholics have own reason as well and disagree/disact with what church says.
The sad part is that this makes them non-Catholics.
The sad part is that this makes them non-Catholics.
Precisely my point.
I am not surprised either, most people claiming to be religious over here, are quite selective in what they actually believe. The Dutch are just too bloody headstrong. :P
Precisely my point.
I am not surprised either, most people claiming to be religious over here, are quite selective in what they actually believe. The Dutch are just too bloody headstrong. :P
It's the same up here in Poland. My favourite group are Catolheads who are fanatic and at the same time they despise atheists, homosexuals, other races. True Catholics, always loving other people, no matter what...:-)
I am not saying only religion is able to provide moral guidance. But it is the best place that provides structural surroundings for getting help and guidance about morality.
We can and we do teach our children math at home but we have also math teachers. We can and we do teach our chlidren morality at home but we have religious teachers as well. I don't see the problem with that. I think the problem is when we presume that leading honest and moral lives is a piece of cake and that we will succeed easily without the need of help and guidance. Religious organisations are a place where we can get it and even actively participate and share help and guidance.
You give an example about how it is easy to see that it is unfair to kill a child. And stil in the next sentence you say how abortion can be fair. I cannot reconcile these 2 sentences when I believe that a child exists as soon as it is conceived. That child has a future. Abortion removes that future. For me this is killing a child. And we don't agree on this very important moral issue. What shall we do? Is this forum the best place to resolve this?
We can and we do teach our children math at home but we have also math teachers. We can and we do teach our chlidren morality at home but we have religious teachers as well. I don't see the problem with that. I think the problem is when we presume that leading honest and moral lives is a piece of cake and that we will succeed easily without the need of help and guidance. Religious organisations are a place where we can get it and even actively participate and share help and guidance.
You give an example about how it is easy to see that it is unfair to kill a child. And stil in the next sentence you say how abortion can be fair. I cannot reconcile these 2 sentences when I believe that a child exists as soon as it is conceived. That child has a future. Abortion removes that future. For me this is killing a child. And we don't agree on this very important moral issue. What shall we do? Is this forum the best place to resolve this?
A child is not a child until it is born. Even if you personally disagree with this notion, this is how I meant it. You shall have to read my post with the clear distinction between 'child' and 'unborn fruit' in mind.
Is this forum the best place to resolve this?
We cannot resolve it. We have our own opinions, which are neither right nor wrong due to a physical law of any sort. They are of an ethical nature. Unlike mathemathical issues, ethical ones cannot be either true or false. They are dependant on time and place. In a world where the value of the female person is nil, except as reproduction factor, it is very clearly ethically 'wrong' to abort. In a world where the life of the mother, up to a certain point, is always more valuable than that of the unborn fruit, there is a very clear ethical argument that abortion may be an ethically correct solution. Now, this is purely theoratically stated. I fully accept that those who believe in 'natural law', which is a very defensible position, will most likely not accept this position. :-)
Is this forum the best place to resolve this?
We cannot resolve it. We have our own opinions, which are neither right nor wrong due to a physical law of any sort. They are of an ethical nature. Unlike mathemathical issues, ethical ones cannot be either true or false. They are dependant on time and place. In a world where the value of the female person is nil, except as reproduction factor, it is very clearly ethically 'wrong' to abort. In a world where the life of the mother, up to a certain point, is always more valuable than that of the unborn fruit, there is a very clear ethical argument that abortion may be an ethically correct solution. Now, this is purely theoratically stated. I fully accept that those who believe in 'natural law', which is a very defensible position, will most likely not accept this position. :-)
Religion can easily be wrong. Religious fundamentalism is always wrong (I don't say all religion is fundamentalist!) The moral behind is most of the time right (you won't find anyone who disapproves tolerance, charity, ...).
i don't have enough time to read everything what is written here, but it seems to me that is the first time that you write something and you are totally wright ;)
off course i must add only one thing: every fundamentalism is always wrong.
i don't have enough time to read everything what is written here, but it seems to me that is the first time that you write something and you are totally wright ;)
off course i must add only one thing: every fundamentalism is always wrong.