Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote:

chaz wyman wrote: That does not satisfy in anyway. That only suggests that god is a liar, or ignorant about key facts of his own creation

I guess I'm not sure what you are looking for in religion, perhaps if you tell me what it is that you are looking for, I might be able to help, but probably not. But I might have an idea where to look.

If you are just looking to discredit or disprove, I really don't see the point. If you don't believe in God or the Bible, OK, what does it matter then if others do? I do agree that if someone is hurting others, someting needs to be done, but hurt done in the name of religion is false and is not part of any religious teaching that I accept as true. That some people act and claim that it is because of religion, is false and not really a part of any religion. So we can talk about religion, or we can condem the false acts done in the name of religion.

chaz wyman wrote: Hurting people in the name of religion is not false. It is a fundamental consequence of belief.
So much is obvious.

thedoc wrote:

chaz wyman wrote: Hurting people in the name of religion is not false. It is a fundamental consequence of belief.
So much is obvious.

This is not obvious to me if it is qualified as being a true teaching of a particular religion. There are many teachings that have been misintrepreted and corrupted, but I do not accept them as true.

Can you name one religion that has not resulted in causing stress hurt, shame, pain and suffering to others.

Felasco wrote:

Can you name one religion that has not resulted in causing stress hurt, shame, pain and suffering to others.

Can you name one human being that has not at some point caused stress, shame, pain and suffering to others?

chaz wyman wrote:

Felasco wrote:

Can you name one religion that has not resulted in causing stress hurt, shame, pain and suffering to others.

Can you name one human being that has not at some point caused stress, shame, pain and suffering to others?

Yes

ShaSha1 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

Felasco wrote:
Can you name one human being that has not at some point caused stress, shame, pain and suffering to others?

Yes

A just question. So I am a drishtantoist.

chaz wyman wrote:
How is this a question?

ShaSha1 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:
How is this a question?

Depending on the sense I have commented you:
The philosophy urges man to be good ethically. To me, if a man becomes so, he will express honest courage for saving himself. In this way, if all men save themselves ethically, the world will be saved from all the problems: religion-based belligerency, terrorism and all kinds of conflict.
----- Shobuj Taposh

chaz wyman wrote:
I see. I suppose the next problem is to define what is and is not ethically good!
Most religions would claim that is what they have been doing for thousands of years.

ShaSha1 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:
I see. I suppose the next problem is to define what is and is not ethically good!
Most religions would claim that is what they have been doing for thousands of years.

The process of being ethically good or the attempt will always be leaded.

chaz wyman wrote:

ShaSha1 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:
I see. I suppose the next problem is to define what is and is not ethically good!
Most religions would claim that is what they have been doing for thousands of years.

The process of being ethically good or the attempt will always be leaded.

"leaded"?

chaz wyman wrote:Can you name one religion that has not resulted in causing stress hurt, shame, pain and suffering to others.

Kayla wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:Can you name one religion that has not resulted in causing stress hurt, shame, pain and suffering to others.

more generally have you heard of any ideology that has not resulted in these things

ShaSha1 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

ShaSha1 wrote:
The process of being ethically good or the attempt will always be leaded.

"leaded"?

Yes. Leaded by others