Would mankind be better off without religion today ? A topical debate .

by Finkelstein 70 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  tec

  Really ? since when does the big bang theory correlate to the seven days of creation by a supernatural being ?

  Nutty statement to be sure or perhaps taken out context to support a contradictory claim, we know religionists do this a lot. .. ie. the JWS/WTS

  Before assigning false motives, perhaps finish reading what I wrote, because I answered your first question (though BTS did as well, I see):

  The physicist Laurence Krauss, on a panel with Dawkins, said that scientists had for a while avoided giving any credence to the big bang theory because it was too close to the biblical account. (of the universe having a beginning)

  Now if you don't like what was said, please feel free to take it up with Krauss, lol. He said it, not me.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  Finkelstein

  Seems somewhat absurd that anyone would say such a thing in the first place, thats why I doubt he did or he said

  it in a different way, twisted out of context by creationists.

  Nevertheless a stupid comment for someone doesn't overturn the knowledge that mankind has acquired over time of the world we live in.

  So the big bang occurred and every one day or ( thousand years ) segmented parts of the universe came to be......intertesting.

  I always found it laughable that THE god created things on a specific time scale in accordance to human interpretation.

  I guess he found it necessary .
• 

  tec

  Seems somewhat absurd that anyone would say such a thing in the first place, thats why I doubt he did or he said

  it in a different way, twisted out of context by creationists.

  I heard him say it myself. I did not get it second-hand. I have since read it in other areas as well. Regardless, this is the link to the thread with the video in which he says it. It is an interesting video regardless, but two hours long. It comes when they are talking about how scientific theories change as new information (tools/evidence) are presented. How the accepted scientific theory of the universe used to be that it was eternal... no beginning. Then that changed to the universe had a beginning, and the big bang was the accepted scientific theory.

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/221834/1/Something-from-Nothing-Discussion-with-Richard-Dawkins-and-Lawrence-Krauss

  The 'days' in the creation story are seen more as time periods. They don't have to be the same; just a representation of the seperate things that occured, and told in a way that people of any era, age, wisdom, scientific knowledge, intelligence etc... can understand. Does no good to tell a story and have only a small percentage of people understand it.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  Finkelstein

  I could debunk the biblical days of creation easily as they chronologically supposedly happened but thats NOT what this thread topic is about is it ?

  Do you have anything relevant to this thread topic concerning sociological human behavior in relation to practicing religious theology ? Tec
• 

  tec

  I made two posts on page two relevant to this topic, Finkelstein. One was an agreement of something someone else stated, and another was in addition to that.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  vanyell

  As much as I want to condemn Finkelstein for being a godless person, for debunking the Bible (or as WTWizard would call it, LIE-ble). He does have a valid point. I think human behavior in relation to religion is a classic case of nurture vs nature.

  Questions to ponder:

  1. If a child grows up in an environment without any connections to religion (devoid of any, even the most minor trappings of religion), will the child grow up into a moral or an immoral or an amoral adult?

  2. In the total absence of religion or belief in God, how do we know why right is right, and wrong is wrong? Will it be via the resulting pain or pleasure or something else?
• 

  N.drew

  Good questions.

  1. The child will learn from it's parents. If they are good teachers the child will more likely be a moral adult like his parents.

  If the child has parents that abuse him, he still might grow up to be a moral adult. He might have learned how NOT to be.

  2. I think it's natural to want to be treated well so we realize that to be treated well we should treat others well. I think humans evolved into creatures that want to be approved by their family and tribe. That would be the "something else" I think.

  Where religion comes in as better for mankind is when the ruling class spoils people's notion of what is needed for one to be approved. Sometimes it's not good.
• 

  tec

  I would never condemn Finkelstein or anyone for being a 'godless' person. Some people naturally have the law of love (morality, compassion, mercy, forgiveness, etc) written on their hearts. Some people need someone/something else to help guide them - and that is Christ for some, and/or God; for other that is the law, or social acceptance/encouragment.

  Then there are also some people who simply know and love Christ, and could not 'not' believe in Him. Like how you don't need a certain friend in your life to continue to live well... but you love them, and so you want them to be part of your life. They enrich your life; they teach you; they bring you joy. Christ is that to some people as well.

  Peace,

  tammy
• 

  vanyell

  Nice feeback. But then there is a rub. How about the parent? the parent's parent? I mean where's the reference standard to determine whether the child have become a moral adult?

  We have standards for weights and measurements. Those standards were determined due to their permanence or stability and integrity. If material objects have a reference standard to compare to, shouldn't human morality have one too? Let's assume that the laws like Code of Hammurabi or Ten Commandments are non-existing or flawed due to their connections to religion, or simply consider that they don't exist at all. What would the reference standard for morality come from?

  What does being treated well mean??? How do we know that we are being treated well? What is morality? What determines right and wrong? Why do humans think? Maybe mankind would be better off with its thinking feature turned-off...
• 

  Finkelstein

  Healthy and worthy sociological behavior can be taught without religious theology in its place, this is a fact.

  In my own years of living I've found people who weren't associated with a religious belief more concerning and responsible

  toward others than the ones that were. Perhaps this may have something to do with the fact that the religious people

  assume (Christians) they had a personal savior supporting them in their relationships with others or they were forcibly prejudice

  against people who weren't of their own belief system. ( ie. JWS ).

  Also less opinionatedly arrogant, less self righteous, probably more intelligent and better educated .

  I'd choose an atheist over a religious zealot any day in a social environment, general speaking.