| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fugitive 
Joined: 20 Aug 2007
Posts: 3035
|
 Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:11 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| NavyCherub wrote: | | Fugitive wrote: | | I phrased that wrong. Judaism wasn't the first to present a moral code. There were laws and rules recorded long before monotheistic religions were developed. |
Yes, they go all the way back to Hammurabi's 288 laws posted on a stone in the city which basically boiled down to "an eye for an eye." |
There were laws before the Code of Hammurabi, that code was just the first of laws written down.
| NavyCherub wrote: | | Fugitive wrote: | | That said, dissecting who was first was fairly irrelevant to the main point of my post. |
Actually I disagree, and I assume you didn't see my edit which is where I found the words to conclude my post in a way that relayed what I really wanted to say to this1guy. The reasons they had those laws is just as important. |
No, I hadn't seen the edit.
I'm just going to say we disagree on this point. I don't see the point in calling yourself a certain religion when you don't follow the main tenant, which is belief in a god. And you can certainly be a moral person without religion. He doesn't have to call himself Jewish in order to associate with the history of his people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NavyCherub
Joined: 28 May 2008
Posts: 3396
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fugitive wrote: | | There were laws before the Code of Hammurabi, that code was just the first of laws written down. |
I thought that's what we were referring to, laws written down for people to continue to use in the future. I suppose in the end this point isn't related, though.
| Fugitive wrote: | | I'm just going to say we disagree on this point. I don't see the point in calling yourself a certain religion when you don't follow the main tenant, which is belief in a god. And you can certainly be a moral person without religion. He doesn't have to call himself Jewish in order to associate with the history of his people. |
I agree that he doesn't necessarily have to consider himself Jewish by "religion," but Jewish by "culture" is perfectly acceptable; would you disagree? Because the way I view it, the second method is more accurate, as it is much like saying you follow traditions of your ethnic culture (Irish, German, what have you) despite not living there. It is very similar after all, especially if his family has always been Jewish, because in that case he does have a connection to the culture in the same way people have ethnic connections to various places. Associating with Jewish history without calling yourself Jewish would be much like associating with Hispanic tradition without calling yourself Hispanic - I understand there are differences, but I hope the similarities I'm trying to point out are clear.
In addition, if one happens to subscribe to the idea that the religion (in this case Judaism) was created as a way of coercing a people into following a set of ideas, which it has been used for many times in many cultures, then the belief in the God that is preached about actually isn't a core essential idea that needs to be kept, because it isn't the point.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fugitive
Joined: 20 Aug 2007
Posts: 3035
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NavyCherub wrote: | | Fugitive wrote: | | There were laws before the Code of Hammurabi, that code was just the first of laws written down. |
I thought that's what we were referring to, laws written down for people to continue to use in the future. I suppose in the end this point isn't related, though. |
Things don't have to be written down to contribute to the future. Many cultures have a deep and great oral tradition. In fact, most of the laws that were around before the Code of Hammurabi ARE in the code, I'm not saying they're different, I'm just saying that laws and rules predate written laws.
| NavyCherub wrote: | | Fugitive wrote: | | I'm just going to say we disagree on this point. I don't see the point in calling yourself a certain religion when you don't follow the main tenant, which is belief in a god. And you can certainly be a moral person without religion. He doesn't have to call himself Jewish in order to associate with the history of his people. |
I agree that he doesn't necessarily have to consider himself Jewish by "religion," but Jewish by "culture" is perfectly acceptable; would you disagree? Because the way I view it, the second method is more accurate, as it is much like saying you follow traditions of your ethnic culture (Irish, German, what have you) despite not living there. It is very similar after all, especially if his family has always been Jewish, because in that case he does have a connection to the culture in the same way people have ethnic connections to various places. Associating with Jewish history without calling yourself Jewish would be much like associating with Hispanic tradition without calling yourself Hispanic - I understand there are differences, but I hope the similarities I'm trying to point out are clear. |
I agree completely. We're more on the same page than I thought. It was the fact that he presented himself as Jewish and agnostic that made me think he was presenting himself as the religion rather than the cultural Jew. He couldn't escape cultural heritage even if he wanted to, so that's almost a null point unless we're arguing whether or not he should present himself as a Jew.
| NavyCherub wrote: | | In addition, if one happens to subscribe to the idea that the religion (in this case Judaism) was created as a way of coercing a people into following a set of ideas, which it has been used for many times in many cultures, then the belief in the God that is preached about actually isn't a core essential idea that needs to be kept, because it isn't the point. |
I agree and that's a very valid and good point. You're talking about a religion that puts more weight on moral code than anything, like many Eastern Asian religions, but Judaism is not one of those, it definitely puts more focus on God than anything else. Maybe if he subscribed to it thousands of years ago you could argue that point, but in this day and age he was definitely not coerced into Judaism to follow a set of ideas. No matter what modern religion (or non-religion) he is he'd follow western morals. He was recruited to worship a deity. So I'd argue in his case that God is the main point so he shouldn't identify as a religious Jew. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NavyCherub
Joined: 28 May 2008
Posts: 3396
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fugitive wrote: | | Things don't have to be written down to contribute to the future. Many cultures have a deep and great oral tradition. In fact, most of the laws that were around before the Code of Hammurabi ARE in the code, I'm not saying they're different, I'm just saying that laws and rules predate written laws. |
Once again, I realize this, I simply thought we were discussing the history of written laws. It really makes no difference, the point that relates to it is still the same - the original written laws are important to the history of Jewish people.
| Fugitive wrote: | | I agree completely. We're more on the same page than I thought. It was the fact that he presented himself as Jewish and agnostic that made me think he was presenting himself as the religion rather than the cultural Jew. He couldn't escape cultural heritage even if he wanted to, so that's almost a null point unless we're arguing whether or not he should present himself as a Jew. |
I'm actually not sure if he realized the difference upon making his post as it doesn't indicate either way, but yes, I agree.
| Fugitive wrote: | | I agree and that's a very valid and good point. You're talking about a religion that puts more weight on moral code than anything, like many Eastern Asian religions, but Judaism is not one of those, it definitely puts more focus on God than anything else. Maybe if he subscribed to it thousands of years ago you could argue that point, but in this day and age he was definitely not coerced into Judaism to follow a set of ideas. No matter what modern religion (or non-religion) he is he'd follow western morals. He was recruited to worship a deity. So I'd argue in his case that God is the main point so he shouldn't identify as a religious Jew. |
But since Judaism is based on the idea that following the Covenants made between the people and God is the same as worshiping him, the morals and ideas presented as a result are the act of worshiping God assuming you believe he exists; there is no Judaism without the Covenant. Though I suppose I agree that if he doesn't believe he is following God's commands by doing these things he shouldn't identify religiously with the culture. The point I was trying to make was that the Covenant and the laws are the culture.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fugitive
Joined: 20 Aug 2007
Posts: 3035
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NavyCherub wrote: | | Though I suppose I agree that if he doesn't believe he is following God's commands by doing these things he shouldn't identify religiously with the culture. The point I was trying to make was that the Covenant and the laws are the culture. |
Yeah, I'm realizing how much of a gray area this is now. I'm not sure I can say anything about this. I don't really have anything more to add to that previous post as it seems we're pretty much in agreement at this point.
-----------
On an unrelated note, I think that was the most mature and calm debate I've ever had on Scorehero. Have a Pikachu (or two):
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vampyromaniac
Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 1216
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm dumb as fuck.
_________________
[/u]
Last edited by Vampyromaniac on Tue Mar 29, 2011 4:11 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pas26
Joined: 04 Oct 2008
Posts: 3664
Location: Québec, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vampyromaniac wrote: | | To avoid ambiguity, people of Jewish heritage should just call themselves white imo. |
There's less difference between the average religion-less black dude and the average religion-less white dude than that last one and a Jewish guy who only is Jewish by culture.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ready2rock
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 1738
Location: somewhere in this vast universe
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 6:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Semi-bump of this thread, but I'm looking for a recommendation and decided that this was the best place to ask for it.
I'm thinking on getting a book (or audiobook to be more accurate) on an argument against religion. I'm between these three
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything - Christopher Hitchens
The End of Faith - Sam Harris
The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins
Now I'm pretty sure that all 3 of these authors have been mentioned in this thread, but I'm wondering which one of these provides the best, most comprehensive argument against religion from someone that has read these.
_________________
 
 
REREAD YOUR POSTS BEFORE YOU SUBMIT THEM!!!
Posts that win: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this whole thread, this, these, this, this |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bclare
Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Posts: 6048
Location: Boston
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't mind Hitchens or Dawkins too much, but Sam Harris is an ass. I'm pretty sure he's just a fucking douchebag, not that he's intentionally exaggerating to prove a point or anything. I'm not religious, and I'll grudgingly concede that I think religion has had more negative effects than positive, but I draw the line at intolerance. Sam Harris does not draw such a line (Dawkins and Hitchens don't very much either but they're less openly dickish about it).
_________________
I'm back I suppose |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
this1neguy
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 5444
Location: Flint, MI
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I had a bioethics class last semester in which the professor referenced The God Delusion several times and, while I haven't read it myself, it seems like it would be an intriguing read. From what I understand of it, Dawkins presents a fairly balanced argument with solid evidence backing up his claims towards atheism as opposed to the intolerant nature of many atheist authors. I meant to look into that book, actually, and never managed to. Thanks for reminding me, aha, I'll have to remember to reserve a copy from the library sometime soon.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yewb 
Joined: 10 Jan 2008
Posts: 3020
Location: Plymouth, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I haven't read The God Delusion, but I read The Greatest Show On Earth cover-to-cover last summer and it really opened my eyes - if only to the fact that atheists can be even more annoyingly evangelical than the worst Christians when they put their minds to it. Shame, really, that Dawkins is so easily trolled - he's way too intelligent to let himself succumb to the urge to throw petty insults, argument by analogy and anecdotal evidence at the issue. Which he does. Constantly. Annoyingly constantly.
TGSOE is a good read, but even if you support his views you're likely to come away thinking Dawkins is a bit of a dick or, worse, a lot of a dick. A dick made of dicks. Dicks everywhere.
I'm not saying TGSOE is a bad, uninteresting or totally one-sided book, though (actually, that's bullshit - it is totally one-sided). There are some really interesting parts, for example in which Dawkins describes this experiment that has taken 22 years so far, an attempt to prove evolutionary theory by literally observing it in action in E. coli. It's a good book, but Dawkins lets his anger, contempt and frustration get in the way of his objectivity to a completely maddening extent, using emotive terms such as "history-denier" and "deluded to the point of perversity" purely to goad the people he sees as his opponents.
I will give The God Delusion a read, though, it's one I've been meaning to for a while. Hopefully it's not just more of the same.
_________________
| expertwin wrote: | | ShadoWolf wrote: | | expertwin wrote: | | I just want to, you know, get my name out there. BTW, it updates every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. Was just the first two, decided to do Saturdays as well. |
Serious advice now: No-one likes indecision in their work, so find what you like that you're even remotely good at, and stick with it. Don't flit from one thing to another, because that just smacks of a large lack of determination and drive. And people don't like you for that, and won't remember you for it. I mean, I get that you have a plucky spirit and a willingness to try new things, but there's a limit, man. |
I might knock it down to just Thursday and Friday. |
| JOE2210 wrote: | | Leave me alone, I have been drinking and your made up words mean nothing to me. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shikka
Joined: 08 Feb 2007
Posts: 402
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 28, 2011 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The God Delusion is a good read. My only problem with it is that Dawkins claims at the beggining of the book that he tries to make this book easy to understand by everyone and he failed horribly. I'm pretty sure the book would be hard to understand by your average American. I know I struggled in some sections.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
illiniguy
Joined: 08 Sep 2008
Posts: 1203
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
@OP
Yes, it's a huge problem here. I myself am a Christian, but I have respect for people of all religions (or in this case, a lack of). Most of my close friends are either Agnostic or Atheist, and we all get along fine. Unfortunately, many people here are not very Atheist-friendly. I don't think it's a problem that's going to go away soon, but I do think it's a problem that will be resolved at SOME point...just not in the near future. As for the Fox News comment, meh, honestly every major news station in the US is riddled with bias. People point out Fox News more than the others simply because it is in the minority in the fact that it is very right-wing. Honestly, all of the others (ESPECIALLY MSNBC) are every bit as bad, they just take a different side than Fox News does.
This will probably be my only post in this thread, because religous threads typically end up as flame wars, and I don't want to get caught up in anger or anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony8
Joined: 12 Jun 2010
Posts: 633
Location: Limbo
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 7:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
For now, I guess I'll answer #3 ;p.
Religious folk believe in an ultimate being, that being a god. An atheist doesn't, hence forth someone religious would find it hard to believe that this person doesn't have faith in a being that's superior than him. If I were very religious, then in my opinion I would find it offensive, but to him or her their own.
The most important thing to remember is that we can't harass atheists out of existence. Let's face it, it's impossible. We each have our own beliefs on morals, society, etc. We have more in common than one thinks and we should all get along in the long run. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fhdra
Joined: 02 Dec 2009
Posts: 532
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Copyright © 2006-2024 ScoreHero, LLC
|
Powered by phpBB
|
![Inbox [ Login ]](templates/subSilver/images/icon_mini_message.gif){kind=icon}
Inbox [ Login ]
Search
Memberlist
Profile
Log in
