Is religion the most basic codification of natural law?

[rvg]

I can answer those questions too....I can make stuff up with the best of them...

You think you can, have you given it a serious try? Theologians and philosophers try to answer these questions in a very logical and thoughtful manner, they most certainly do not luck the answers out of thin air.

[Ronin]

You think you can, have you given it a serious try? Theologians and philosophers try to answer these questions in a very logical and thoughtful manner, they most certainly do not luck the answers out of thin air.

I edited my post before you answered...sorry.


Like I said....when we don´t know something....we should just say we don´t know...I see no reason to make up answers....

but If I want to...I could make up answers with no problem....specially if I can have the special dispensation of logic rules religion enjoys......will phylosophers disagree with me?...sure...but I can just say they are heads that don´t know the real truth of the Lord! (me)

see?...easy.

[atheotes]

I edited my post before you answered...sorry.


Like I said....when we don´t know something....we should just say we don´t know...I see no reason to make up answers....

but If I want to...I could make up answers with no problem....specially if I can have the special dispensation of logic rules religion enjoys......will phylosophers disagree with me?...sure...but I can just say they are heads that don´t know the real truth of the Lord! (me)

see?...easy.

true... people are taught not to question their religions and that makes it easy to use religion as "get out of jail" card in these situations....

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Science and religion both seek truth. Generally people say that the difference between the two is that religion relies on beliefs. In my view though, science relies on belief (as it should) and goes to great lengths to test and retest those beliefs. The ability to conceptualize is key to scientific understanding. Religion also relies on belief, but shouldn't. Knowing truth doesn't require belief. But people like beliefs so they are an important part of most current religions, even if the founders of those religions wouldn't approve.

COsmological Argument is a fairly well-known one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

"There is a first cause of the universe" never seemed like an argument that came close to answering "why are we here?" to me...

[Kadagar_AV]

Too much censorship on these boards.

[rvg]

O RLY?

source please?

YA RLY...

COsmological Argument is a fairly well-known one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

[Sigurd]

Religion is also capable of answering the kinds of questions that science will never be able to answer. Questions like "why are we here" and "what is the meaning of life".

This sounds like something out of a certain US based faith who threw these lines at you in the nineties. It's been a while since I have seen this particular combination. Not many denominations have answers to these questions which were regarded by Clement of Rome as part of the terrible questions.

YA RLY...

COsmological Argument is a fairly well-known one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

Yeah... this old thing.
A linky to something that ended too short.

Besides, that is old - a better one would be something about The Transcendental Proof of God's Existence.
If I ever get to debate the theist side again I am going to use this concept in my argument.

[Koga No Goshi]

There are tons of similar examples, but prostate cancer being known for much of western history as "priest's disease" due to its much higher chances of appearing in men who abstain from all sexual activity (including masturbation) is one instance of how religion does not codify so-called natural law, and in fact, many times mandates people to go against natural law. To the detriment of their health, sometimes.