Religious Discussion 16936 replies

Please wait...

D.Sporky!

God Send Death

50 XP

10th January 2004

0 Uploads

6,981 Posts

0 Threads

#16921 6 years ago

Too many big words..I'm not really sure what you just said..but I don't see what "trees of simpler states" has to do with the creation (or infinite nature) of the matter which is our universe.




Showd0wN

Skeptic Extraordinaire.

50 XP

7th February 2009

0 Uploads

1,253 Posts

0 Threads

#16922 6 years ago

He's simply saying that everything complex we see around us originally started out much simpler and came to be complex over time.




Granyaski VIP Member

High as a kite

107 XP

29th May 2008

0 Uploads

11,881 Posts

1 Threads

#16923 6 years ago
D.Sporky!;5657857Maybe when he studies the universe and the life around him instead of thinking "wow, crazy that this all just happened" he sees the work of a designer. I really don't find that delusional thinking.

I agree with you there.

'Nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God'-Cicero. It's human nature to assume something like that, especially if uneducated or believe it from a young age.




Rikupsoni

Victim of Forgotten HopeForum bystander

50 XP

26th April 2004

0 Uploads

3,047 Posts

0 Threads

#16924 6 years ago

Regarding the German circumcision protests: BBC News - Germany Jews and Muslims protest at circumcision ruling

I wonder if all religions are on the same line here. Muslims and Jews in Germany say they have the right to mutilate the genitals of children because that's "religious freedom". And they remind people of the Nazi past, implying that people who support full bodily inviolability of children are somehow Nazis. Great logic there.

Maybe an occultist wants to brand the forehead of his child with a runic insignia. "Hey, that's not doing any harm! It's just a scar." Will this be also tolerated as a part of "religious freedom"?




Kilobyte

What does the Fox say?

69,060 XP

23rd November 2002

0 Uploads

6,468 Posts

0 Threads

#16925 6 years ago

I'd say that all religions are on the same line here.

Except that the exceptions really only count for one's own religion, because the other religion is stupid. Once one realizes the hypocrisy of that statement, it is necessary to allow all religions the right to do so. There are limits to what is permitted under religion, but I do not know where exactly that line is drawn.

I was not aware that circumcision was practiced by Muslims, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was done by all Abrahamic religions.

I am surprised at this ruling myself. Circumcision is a key requirement of Judaism, and has been for thousands of years. It can been seen as almost a threat of making practicing Judaism illegal.

From what I understand from the Christian Bible, having any uncircumcised male in the household is enough to cause the household, or even the nation to fall out of favor with God. It is akin to being a drunk beggar on the street.

To have your child circumcised is to place that child into what is considered to be the upper middle class, with a chance at becoming one of the top 1%. An uncircumcised male brings the entire household down to below poverty level. Undesirables.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,655 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,168 Posts

6 Threads

#16926 6 years ago

I wonder whether when someone starts raping kids as part of their religion that will be religious freedom too?...

Oh, wait.

Supporting a strong principle of bodily inviolability seems to be a fairly pragmatic move if you want to avoid justifying other things. It's awfully hard to draw lines in once you start prattling on about religious freedom granting you special rights.




Kilobyte

What does the Fox say?

69,060 XP

23rd November 2002

0 Uploads

6,468 Posts

0 Threads

#16927 6 years ago

Nemmerle;5659870I wonder whether when someone starts raping kids as part of their religion that will be religious freedom too?...

Oh, wait.[/quote] Low blow? If you are talking about Catholics, I don't think that was technically sanctioned, or considered to be an expression of religious freedom.

I am not aware of any major religion that considers that tolerable.

[QUOTE=Nemmerle;5659870]Supporting a strong principle of bodily inviolability seems to be a fairly pragmatic move if you want to avoid justifying other things.It's awfully hard to draw lines in once you start prattling on about religious freedom granting you special rights.

It is a fairly pragmatic move, I agree.

Religious freedom should not grant any special rights, no matter the religion, all citizens should be held accountable to the same law, the "law of the land" as it were. That said, court rulings are subject to an appeal process, and citizens have a right to protest. In this case, the religious members did protest, and got the ruling overturned.

The question in this instance is whether or not circumcision is harmful. This is a practice that has been in use for thousands of years, and is considered to be one of the defining characteristics of a culture. To suddenly, after thousands of years, declare this practice to be illegal, demands too much change in too short a time. Genesis 17:12-14 - All males over 8 days old must be circumcised, or they must be cut off from the their people.

Clearly circumcision is painful if painkillers are not used. Surgery, and spankings are painful, but both of these are used towards a positive goal. Pain in and of itself does not make something wrong.

In the U.S.A, there are conflicting reports as to whether or not this is a harmful, or beneficial practice. The American medical community seems to hold the position of "Personal Preference/Religion".

Male Circumcision Circumcision: Position Paper on Neonatal Circumcision -- AAFP Clinical Recommendations -- American Academy of Family Physicians

So you have a declaration from God that all males must be circumcised, a culture with a thousand year history of this practice, and a medical community that varies between endorsment, and indifference. Over here, I don't see a lot of reasons not to have children circumcised.

Note: I am an uncircumcised male, and I have no plans to circumcise any of my offspring, if I have any.




Rikupsoni

Victim of Forgotten HopeForum bystander

50 XP

26th April 2004

0 Uploads

3,047 Posts

0 Threads

#16928 6 years ago

It comes down to whether the concept of "religious freedom" should be a negative or a positive right. Is it your religious right to make your child religious, or is it the child's religious right to decide for himself?

As for Kilobyte, many historical Catholic popes actually condemned circumcision (starting from Saint Peter, Acts 15) but that seems to be more neutral these days.

But I see the question as being a fundamental right. You're not only changing a thing in a child's body for religious reasons (in a provocative way one could compare that to sacrificing goats as an important religious practice that could be modernised like the latter was).

What Richard Dawkins seems to always emphasize is that you shouldn't call a child Christian, Muslim or Judaistic –because a child hasn't yet decided – he or she may have Christian or Muslim parents but is not one, yet atleast. So to what extent parents should be able to decide that? Circumcision is a very concrete way that parents mark their child to be Judaistic or a Muslim for the rest of their lives even if the child later turns out irreligious.




D.Sporky!

God Send Death

50 XP

10th January 2004

0 Uploads

6,981 Posts

0 Threads

#16929 6 years ago
Showd0wN;5659410He's simply saying that everything complex we see around us originally started out much simpler and came to be complex over time.

Yes but everything at some point started..simpler, more condensed, whatever it was, it started somewhere did it not?




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,655 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,168 Posts

6 Threads

#16930 6 years ago

The objection to the universe just appearing is generally that it would be complex. I was saying that god would also be complex - and that while it's possible he got that complexity in the same way that the universe would have, it's still going to be more probable that just the universe did it than that god did it and then caused the universe to do it. All else being equal two events are less probable than one.