View Single Post
Old 01-05-2010, 04:17 AM   #109
purifier
Forumite
 
purifier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: DisneyLand
Posts: 722
LF Jester 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
No doubt that "the golden rule" works in a majority of situations. The point was that we don't need to have "the golden rule" in order to come to the conclusion it proffers (in fact, we can create a better version).
It's always been a simple statement, as a moral guideline for all. One good reason as to why this rule is worded the way it is, is so that the words it conveys can even be understood by the uneducated mind; not just the educated mind only. Creating a better version would just be overkill IMO. I mean why mess with something so simple and to the direct point in it's meaning for those who have a hard time in understanding other complicated statements, that really mean the same thing.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
If the argument is "religion is good because it gives us the golden rule", then what happens when we realize that we don't need religion in order to have something that serves the same function? What purpose does religion serve at this point?
You'll get no argument from me on this point, I've always believe the rule could stand on it's own without religion.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Based on what? What makes one religion "right" and other religions "wrong"? Please be specific.
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear with my statement and I think I mislead you. Actually, I don't believe that any religion is totally right or that one is above the other, just because any of them say so. And I really should have mentioned that, from my point view, all religions have become corrupt over time. Anyway, my bad.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
If the philosophies are what appeals to you, then why not simply study philosophy?
Funny you should mention that, actually I do and have been studying philosophy off and on for quite awhile.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
First, I'm not sure why we're conflating "secular humanism" with "scientific method". I'm sure that if we were to do a poll we would find that many secular humanists are science-minded and that many scientists are secular humanists, but there is nothing inherently tying the two groups together. Your implication otherwise is a little confusing.
Hmmm. To be honest with you, and for some reason, I got that impression from this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
scroll down too "Tenets" and under that look at "Reason, evidence, scientific method", that's where I derived my conclusion about "Secular Humanists" and the "Scientific Method" from. If this is incorrect, and if you could, I would like for you to enlighten me on the this. I would hate to make the wrong assumptions about all this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles View Post
Second, I'm fully willing to accept that there are things that science cannot currently explain and may never be able to explain (string theory springs to mind). However, I'm not sure how "making stuff up" becomes a superior methodology for uncovering "truth" in that void. If you could explain to me what I'm missing here, I think it would be very helpful.
When you say "I'm not sure how making stuff up becomes a superior methodology for uncovering truth in that void", do you mean drawing a conclusion from one's own thinking to make sense of the unexplained?


SITH HAPPENS
purifier is offline   you may: quote & reply,