NationStates Jolt Archive

some people here just seem to be very against it. so whats wrong with religion?

*resists the urge to give valia a link to the sceptics annotated bible*

This is a pretty vague question. Different answers can be given for different religions, and whether it is organized religion or not makes a large difference.

Personally, I find that many religious beliefs are too unscientific for my liking.
I also dislike organized religion as it seems to encourage conformism.

It starts wars, holds back science, and is literally at the root of the evil of mankind. That's their arguement. However, the ones I call the "militant athiests" fail to realize that religion is a source of comfort and inspiration to millions, if not billions, of people. It builds societies, is the basis of Western ethics, and gives many a reason to live.

Nothing is wrong or right with religion(s). What people do with religion is what is good or bad or somewhere between the two.

There are only two religions I don't like. The first is satanism because it encourages hate and selfishness, things that really don't help us. The second is transhumanism, for pretending not to be a religion, but having an equalivant to the apocallypse (the singularity), anyway.

-----------------------------------------
"Beside him is a beautiful androgyne called SWITCH, aiming a large gun at Neo."--Script of The Matrix (I love The Matrix, but that is still funny.)
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

It starts wars, holds back science, and is literally at the root of the evil of mankind. That's their arguement. However, the ones I call the "militant athiests" fail to realize that religion is a source of comfort and inspiration to millions, if not billions, of people. It builds societies, is the basis of Western ethics, and gives many a reason to live.

These "militant" atheists of which you speak are not true scientist in my opinion, as they reject all religious concepts without consideration. I would call agnosticism the most scientific of stances (though I'm not saying agnosticism and science are equivalent).

Well I dont exactly like the aspect of religion which forces believers to blindly accept doctrine, and well . . . in many cases it has been shown that high religious authorities are corrupt (IE the archdioscese of Boston, certain Muslim clerics, etc)

I dont have any problem with religious belief but I do have problems with organised religious groups.

Most churches end up having a bottom line rationality of 'i know better then you do'. Sometimes this is disguised in other forms like 'the bible knows better than you do' but really thats just saying the same thing - that some one else has an inherently better moral code than I do. Call me an egotist but I happen to think my own moral code is pretty decent. Of course if you believe that g_d really did come down from heaven to write the bible/koran/torah etc then that is understandable. If that were the case, however, then most philosophical arguments for the existence of a higher being fall over as, after all, faith ceases to be faith in the presence of proof.

Bring on personal spirituality though!

its hurt a lot of people, and breeds hatred...
only with the cases you hear though, all the good cases are kept mum, lest someone might actually have a way to have a real opinion... god forbid anyone impose reason on their thoughts...

It starts wars, holds back science, and is literally at the root of the evil of mankind. That's their arguement. However, the ones I call the "militant athiests" fail to realize that religion is a source of comfort and inspiration to millions, if not billions, of people. It builds societies, is the basis of Western ethics, and gives many a reason to live.

These "militant" atheists of which you speak are not true scientist in my opinion, as they reject all religious concepts without consideration. I would call agnosticism the most scientific of stances (though I'm not saying agnosticism and science are equivalent).
Sounds like a romantic philosophy, though I'd personally stick with what I was raised to believe in. Many scientists, btw, were, and still are, very religious men. Take Johannes Kepler, for example. He believed that the heliocentric theory supported God, and he made no distinction between mathematics and philosophy. Galileo Galilei was also the same way.

It starts wars, holds back science, and is literally at the root of the evil of mankind. That's their arguement. However, the ones I call the "militant athiests" fail to realize that religion is a source of comfort and inspiration to millions, if not billions, of people. It builds societies, is the basis of Western ethics, and gives many a reason to live.

These "militant" atheists of which you speak are not true scientist in my opinion, as they reject all religious concepts without consideration. I would call agnosticism the most scientific of stances (though I'm not saying agnosticism and science are equivalent).
Sounds like a romantic philosophy, though I'd personally stick with what I was raised to believe in. Many scientists, btw, were, and still are, very religious men. Take Johannes Kepler, for example. He believed that the heliocentric theory supported God, and he made no distinction between mathematics and philosophy. Galileo Galilei was also the same way.
*makes a 666 joke* :D

It starts wars, holds back science, and is literally at the root of the evil of mankind. That's their arguement. However, the ones I call the "militant athiests" fail to realize that religion is a source of comfort and inspiration to millions, if not billions, of people. It builds societies, is the basis of Western ethics, and gives many a reason to live.

These "militant" atheists of which you speak are not true scientist in my opinion, as they reject all religious concepts without consideration. I would call agnosticism the most scientific of stances (though I'm not saying agnosticism and science are equivalent).
Sounds like a romantic philosophy, though I'd personally stick with what I was raised to believe in. Many scientists, btw, were, and still are, very religious men. Take Johannes Kepler, for example. He believed that the heliocentric theory supported God, and he made no distinction between mathematics and philosophy. Galileo Galilei was also the same way.
Yes, people who are scientists by profession are often religious, and are(or have been in the case of the deceased) a great asset to society. I however, am scientific by philosophy.

Right now I'd have to say the number of religous threads going right now....

All things being equal, an atheist has never come to my door to talk to me about god while I was trying to watch Flash Gordon.....

It starts wars, holds back science, and is literally at the root of the evil of mankind. That's their arguement. However, the ones I call the "militant athiests" fail to realize that religion is a source of comfort and inspiration to millions, if not billions, of people. It builds societies, is the basis of Western ethics, and gives many a reason to live.

These "militant" atheists of which you speak are not true scientist in my opinion, as they reject all religious concepts without consideration. I would call agnosticism the most scientific of stances (though I'm not saying agnosticism and science are equivalent).
Sounds like a romantic philosophy, though I'd personally stick with what I was raised to believe in. Many scientists, btw, were, and still are, very religious men. Take Johannes Kepler, for example. He believed that the heliocentric theory supported God, and he made no distinction between mathematics and philosophy. Galileo Galilei was also the same way.
*makes a 666 joke* :D
A 666 joke? Like "if you ring 999 for police (in england), do you ring 666 for criminals?"

It starts wars, holds back science, and is literally at the root of the evil of mankind. That's their arguement. However, the ones I call the "militant athiests" fail to realize that religion is a source of comfort and inspiration to millions, if not billions, of people. It builds societies, is the basis of Western ethics, and gives many a reason to live.

These "militant" atheists of which you speak are not true scientist in my opinion, as they reject all religious concepts without consideration. I would call agnosticism the most scientific of stances (though I'm not saying agnosticism and science are equivalent).
Sounds like a romantic philosophy, though I'd personally stick with what I was raised to believe in. Many scientists, btw, were, and still are, very religious men. Take Johannes Kepler, for example. He believed that the heliocentric theory supported God, and he made no distinction between mathematics and philosophy. Galileo Galilei was also the same way.
Yes, people who are scientists by profession are often religious, and are(or have been in the case of the deceased) a great asset to society. I however, am scientific by philosophy.
You have one bendable mind. Too bad I'm not like that. I have too many convictions about everything.

Relegion will continue to cause chaos and destruction becuase people are to ignorant handle relegion. Like drugs, democracy, and freedom in general, people are to stupid to handle it. Relegion is for the dead and the dying.
The bloodshed caused by relegion is disgusting and the human misery is unberable. I am pro-choice and a Eugentiscist. Euthanasia is badly needed but those bloody christians are against it. I believe their is a God. But we have a slogan. "Christanity for heaven Alansyism for a utopian earth" I have found my diety, his name is Big Brother. Oh, Big Brother the deliverer of lies. I praise you and ingsoc.

Catholics are Nazis! End war become apolitical and aspritual, Now!

:D Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is Strength

Liberate the human race now join one of the following parties...
Alansyist Party (website under contruction)
Libertarian National Socialist Green Party
Union of Fascism

I am ... a Eugentiscist.

You believe the weak and stupid should be killed off? Well, given your spelling and grammar, one would not expect such a stance.

I spell terribly when I am angry. And nothing makes my blood boil more then fundmentalists. I am a published author. The book is the Alansyist Manifesto which you will see in every household one day.

And I believe only those who are unable to provide a service to the community be killed off. But rather than a giant massacre I plan on setting up a world based on huxlian principles.

I spell terribly when I am angry. And nothing makes my blood boil more then fundmentalists. I am a published author. The book is the Alansyist Manifesto which you will see in every household one day.

what? :shock:

It was a rebuttal to linux boy's comment. And I really am an author. I plan on posting excerpts from the book on a website.

I spell terribly when I am angry. And nothing makes my blood boil more then fundmentalists. I am a published author. The book is the Alansyist Manifesto which you will see in every household one day.



And nothing makes my blood boil more than people throwing words like "Nazi" around applying it to over a billion people around the world.

And I believe only those who are unable to provide a service to the community be killed off. But rather than a giant massacre I plan on setting up a world based on huxlian principles.

you claim that region causes wars that bring death yet support the cleansing of the weak in society, if it is true that religous are weak why not let them cleanse themselves in their wars, i supose then that you support the nazis method of cleansing and believe that those who do not seek to further the human perfection should be removed, ie homosexuals. your "ethics" sicken me.

Wait a minute. I have no grudge with homosexuals or minorites. Repbulicans, Capitalists, and non confomists are the only people on my hit-list. Oh yes the pope supported Hitler for many years. Read it in shirers "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"

Once Bush turns this country into a hellhole, Alansyisim will triumph over the stupidity,lies and corruption of democracy and capitalisim.

We are friendly fascists. And we plan on creating a benovolent dictatorship. Without the interference of these so-called "christians."
Anyone can join the party regardless of sexuality or race. I am very liberial in many aspects.

perhaps some of you should look into my religion, Zoroastrianism. I strongly beleve that faith and science can and should inner-mix. Personaly I feel that what science can prove, it is therefore apart of Ahura Mazda's creation and no matter how messed up it may seem there is a reason for everything that exists.
Im not much on teaching the faith so I suggest all that are interested to visit: http://www.zoroastrianism.cc/

It is a good relegion. But nevertheless it is a relegion. And all relegions promote factionalisim which causes disunity and civil disorder. Which is intolerable to Alansyism.

It is a good relegion. But nevertheless it is a relegion. And all relegions promote factionalisim which causes disunity and civil disorder. Which is intolerable to Alansyism.

Actually, organized religions are all about conformism. It's just that they don't agree on what to conform to.

However, I believe democracy is necessary to allow new ideas, and intelligent discussion. I do not deny however, that corruption must be weeded out. A one-party state would encourage corruption, as the party would know they could not be voted out.

Well I just wanted people to know I'm not a crazy KKK guy.
But I do beleive in the principles set fourth George Orwell and Aldous Huxley in their brillant novels.

Well I just wanted people to know I'm not a crazy KKK guy.
But I do beleive in the principles set fourth George Orwell and Aldous Huxley in their brillant novels.

I hope you're not suggesting that George Orwell's book 1984 described a good society. This is obvious not the case, as can be easily discerned by the people's standards of living (and the presence of social classes).

like many other thing religion, when taken in moderation, is a good thing. I guess.

Wait a minute. I have no grudge with homosexuals or minorites. Repbulicans, Capitalists, and non confomists are the only people on my hit-list. Oh yes the pope supported Hitler for many years. Read it in shirers "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"

Once Bush turns this country into a hellhole, Alansyisim will triumph over the stupidity,lies and corruption of democracy and capitalisim.

We are friendly fascists. And we plan on creating a benovolent dictatorship. Without the interference of these so-called "christians."
Anyone can join the party regardless of sexuality or race. I am very liberial in many aspects.Friendly facsists, isn't that an oxymoron?

I think it can be bad as people use it as a way of grouping others, saying all with the same beliefs are good and others are bad.
It can also encourage people to just follow beliefs blindly and just ignore other points of view.

It starts wars, holds back science, and is literally at the root of the evil of mankind. That's their arguement. However, the ones I call the "militant athiests" fail to realize that religion is a source of comfort and inspiration to millions, if not billions, of people. It builds societies, is the basis of Western ethics, and gives many a reason to live.

These "militant" atheists of which you speak are not true scientist in my opinion, as they reject all religious concepts without consideration. I would call agnosticism the most scientific of stances (though I'm not saying agnosticism and science are equivalent).

They don't reject all religion without consideration. They consider it first, usually. I'm not a 'militant athiest' in that I think religious people should be forced to change, I just hold religious people in low regard. I recognise it as a source of great comfort, but that doesn't make it a good thing. It's the old debate of whether 'the truth will set you free' or 'ignorance is bliss'. Hey, if people want to believe, it's up to them. However, it's a shame that many religious people don't return the favour by keeping their religion out of my life. That's what irritates me- that people can intefere in my life, not present any decent evidence for why they are doing so, then claim that their interference comes from a divine source. That is heartless arrogance.

As for agnosticism being the most scientific belief, I would have to disagree. Take Christianity- how could a scientist use as his sole evidence a book written over 1,500 years ago as any sort of fact? There is no evidence for God in any form, so a scientist would be foolish to say it was stmore than a small possibility. Of course there IS a possibilty, but it is so minute and unproven that a scientist would have to dismiss in as speculation.

I have nothing against religions per se. What I don't like are fundies of any faith, or anyone, for that matter, that tries to push his/her faith on someone else. I also get so tired of people that use details of a religion I don't even believe in as valid arguments in a debate.

Be of whatever faith you like, just don't try to convert me to it.

Unfortunately, as with anything in this world, a small group of people have, and still do, use religion for their own personal gains and means.

This, inevitably, gives religion a bad name but it doesn't mean we are all like them.

It starts wars, holds back science, and is literally at the root of the evil of mankind. That's their arguement. However, the ones I call the "militant athiests" fail to realize that religion is a source of comfort and inspiration to millions, if not billions, of people. It builds societies, is the basis of Western ethics, and gives many a reason to live.

These "militant" atheists of which you speak are not true scientist in my opinion, as they reject all religious concepts without consideration. I would call agnosticism the most scientific of stances (though I'm not saying agnosticism and science are equivalent).

They don't reject all religion without consideration. They consider it first, usually. I'm not a 'militant athiest' in that I think religious people should be forced to change, I just hold religious people in low regard. I recognise it as a source of great comfort, but that doesn't make it a good thing. It's the old debate of whether 'the truth will set you free' or 'ignorance is bliss'. Hey, if people want to believe, it's up to them. However, it's a shame that many religious people don't return the favour by keeping their religion out of my life. That's what irritates me- that people can intefere in my life, not present any decent evidence for why they are doing so, then claim that their interference comes from a divine source. That is heartless arrogance.

As for agnosticism being the most scientific belief, I would have to disagree. Take Christianity- how could a scientist use as his sole evidence a book written over 1,500 years ago as any sort of fact? There is no evidence for God in any form, so a scientist would be foolish to say it was stmore than a small possibility. Of course there IS a possibilty, but it is so minute and unproven that a scientist would have to dismiss in as speculation.
You display the hallmarks of militant atheism. In that sense, you are only a notch below what Stalin felt about religion.
Then again, it should be no surprise. You're a professional artist. Isn't it ironic that most of history's greatest scientists were very religious men, while most of history's greatest artists were hard core athiests? One'd expect it to be inverse.

i am an agnostic with buddhist leanings.

and personally, so long as people don't stand and preach to me on street corners and try to force homosexuals to be heterosexuals or well, generally trying to force their beliefs on people or killing people for their beliefs, then i have no problem with them. fundamentalists of any kind whether they be christian, muslim, atheistic et c kinda piss me off.

It starts wars, holds back science, and is literally at the root of the evil of mankind. That's their arguement. However, the ones I call the "militant athiests" fail to realize that religion is a source of comfort and inspiration to millions, if not billions, of people. It builds societies, is the basis of Western ethics, and gives many a reason to live.

These "militant" atheists of which you speak are not true scientist in my opinion, as they reject all religious concepts without consideration. I would call agnosticism the most scientific of stances (though I'm not saying agnosticism and science are equivalent).

They don't reject all religion without consideration. They consider it first, usually. I'm not a 'militant athiest' in that I think religious people should be forced to change, I just hold religious people in low regard. I recognise it as a source of great comfort, but that doesn't make it a good thing. It's the old debate of whether 'the truth will set you free' or 'ignorance is bliss'. Hey, if people want to believe, it's up to them. However, it's a shame that many religious people don't return the favour by keeping their religion out of my life. That's what irritates me- that people can intefere in my life, not present any decent evidence for why they are doing so, then claim that their interference comes from a divine source. That is heartless arrogance.

As for agnosticism being the most scientific belief, I would have to disagree. Take Christianity- how could a scientist use as his sole evidence a book written over 1,500 years ago as any sort of fact? There is no evidence for God in any form, so a scientist would be foolish to say it was stmore than a small possibility. Of course there IS a possibilty, but it is so minute and unproven that a scientist would have to dismiss in as speculation.
You display the hallmarks of militant atheism. In that sense, you are only a notch below what Stalin felt about religion.
Then again, it should be no surprise. You're a professional artist. Isn't it ironic that most of history's greatest scientists were very religious men, while most of history's greatest artists were hard core athiests? One'd expect it to be inverse.

I thought it was the inverse of that.

The whole point of religion is to provide hope in old age. You see, death is a very scary thing, people need something to trust in when edging towards death. In the early days of man, people only really understood fear, and the driving force for life was just that, kill or be killed, now as the threat of death became less, people in power needed some other way to drive the efforts of man kind, thus religion was born, scare people and they will do as you wish, make a good and an evil and you have two driving forces, everyone will choose which one suites them best. It was/is the perfect formula for managing the human race. The guy who thought it all up... we now know as GOD!

Many people rely on religion to support them in difficult times. For some this is a brainwashing sort of thing, were they simply belive, no questions asked. However, on N-S the problems and difficulties with religion are very serios because the people who post here are very smart and dont take any crap so they tend to abhor religion. Dont get me wrong, there are many religious people on N-S and they have that small thing that I, and many other people lack, Faith. Not blind faith, but faith. That is the ability to see the buety of god and creation without getting entangled in the problems of his writings, teachings, commandments, etc...

It's important to note however that most people on N-Swould say they are agnostic rather than Atheist.
The definition agnostic:

Noun
1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism. 2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
Adjective
1. Relating to or being an agnostic. 2. Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).
Etymology
a-1 + Gnostic.


maybe a thread about this would be apropriate?
S-P

And I believe only those who are unable to provide a service to the community be killed off.

And just WHO will be the person deciding "who provides a service to the community" and who doesn't??


And your "idealism" that you've posted is contrary to this quote,
Good is a product of the ethical and spiritual artistry of individuals; it cannot be mass-produced.

My theory is that religion provides a framework and tool set to explore metaphysics. Religious frameworks are simply personificiations of spiritual devotion. Much as a scientist uses mathematics to model the world in order to predict possible outcomes, spiritual inquiry can be accomplished through specified religious workings. Like any tool, however, it can be and has been misused. It is incorrect to claim science is "evil" or "bad" because it has given us burden's like the nuclear bomb and global warming. Science, on the whole, has provided more good than bad and, ultimately, it is simply a tool set and can not be blamed for what the craftsman uses it for. So too with religion. Horrible things have been done in it's name, but that doesn't invalidate the fundamental concept of it's existance. I do believe that, on the whole, more good has come from religion than bad.

There must be a firm understanding, though, that religion and science are two different tool sets used for exploring two different concepts. Science is the actualization of pure rationality and seeks to explain the physical world. Religion is the actualization of faith and spirituality and attempts to explain the metaphysical. Neither one is superior or better than the other, just as a chain saw is not inherantly better than a hammer. If you have to chop down a tree, you use a chain saw, but if you have to drive a nail, you use a hammer. They are different tools for different jobs and each is excellent for it's specific purpose but little good in other situations.

I believe it is possible to be both "scientific" as well as "religious", but only so long as you maintain a clear understanding of the specific purposes of each one. To use science against religion or religion against science is a mistake and a misapplication of both. Spiritual inquiry and rational pursuits are not inherantly inimical to one another, but many people try and set them up to be. Indeed, as a previous poster mentioned, many great scientists were also deeply religious men and women. It is possible to be both if you are willing to grant each one the appropriate respect it deserves in it's particular realm.

However, people tend to not think like this. It is easier, safer, more comfortable to embrace one wholly and revile the other. Everyone wants to be on the winning side and, as a fundamentally confrontational species, we turn everything into a battle and ignore possible venues for collaboration. The truly visionary men and women see those venues and demand their exploration and further demand better gods and better science because of it. They acknolwedge that we are not a wholly rational species just as we are not capable of living on faith alone. The physical and the spiritual are combined in all of us. We may never answer the "why" questions, but we keep asking them and longing for answers. This has to mean something. We may also never fully answer the "how" questions, but again we will keep asking them and searching for physical truth. Only through respectful acknolwedgement of both sides of our inherant curiosity will we ever advance forward as a species and fully realize whatever potential for perfection we may possess.

It starts wars, holds back science, and is literally at the root of the evil of mankind. That's their arguement. However, the ones I call the "militant athiests" fail to realize that religion is a source of comfort and inspiration to millions, if not billions, of people. It builds societies, is the basis of Western ethics, and gives many a reason to live.

These "militant" atheists of which you speak are not true scientist in my opinion, as they reject all religious concepts without consideration. I would call agnosticism the most scientific of stances (though I'm not saying agnosticism and science are equivalent).

They don't reject all religion without consideration. They consider it first, usually. I'm not a 'militant athiest' in that I think religious people should be forced to change, I just hold religious people in low regard. I recognise it as a source of great comfort, but that doesn't make it a good thing. It's the old debate of whether 'the truth will set you free' or 'ignorance is bliss'. Hey, if people want to believe, it's up to them. However, it's a shame that many religious people don't return the favour by keeping their religion out of my life. That's what irritates me- that people can intefere in my life, not present any decent evidence for why they are doing so, then claim that their interference comes from a divine source. That is heartless arrogance.

As for agnosticism being the most scientific belief, I would have to disagree. Take Christianity- how could a scientist use as his sole evidence a book written over 1,500 years ago as any sort of fact? There is no evidence for God in any form, so a scientist would be foolish to say it was stmore than a small possibility. Of course there IS a possibilty, but it is so minute and unproven that a scientist would have to dismiss in as speculation.
You display the hallmarks of militant atheism. In that sense, you are only a notch below what Stalin felt about religion.
Then again, it should be no surprise. You're a professional artist. Isn't it ironic that most of history's greatest scientists were very religious men, while most of history's greatest artists were hard core athiests? One'd expect it to be inverse.

I thought it was the inverse of that.
Well, I'd think that scientists would automatically discredit God, accrediting everything to the laws of physics. It amazes me to this day to find religious scientists, and believe me, I know a few in fields one'd never expect. Being that my hometown, Rochester, NY, is a hub for optical research, I know some very religious optical engineers and physicists. All of the philosophers and serious artists that I know, however, are athiests. And that amazes me.
Then again, I have a theory on why artists are athiests. They place credit on man, and relish his accomplishments. It's also about their morals. Look at any painting or sculpture in the history of European art. Every other one contains a nude. There must be a link.

Well, I'd think that scientists would automatically discredit God, accrediting everything to the laws of physics. It amazes me to this day to find religious scientists, and believe me, I know a few in fields one'd never expect. Being that my hometown, Rochester, NY, is a hub for optical research, I know some very religious optical engineers and physicists.

It's not all that surprising. Many scientists hold spiritual views of one stripe or another. There seems to be this fundamental generalization that when one becomes a scientist, one must become this predefined, souless automaton who's only purpose for existance is to acquire knowledge. In fact, scientists and those who devote their lives to increasing human knolwedge are fundamentally curious individuals who have a sincere desire and fascination with how it all works. Why would they limit themselves and thier curiosity to only one field of inquiry, particularly when spiritual inquiry is highly personal and can be accomplished with relatively few computers and almost no expensive glass ware?


All of the philosophers and serious artists that I know, however, are athiests. And that amazes me.
Then again, I have a theory on why artists are athiests. They place credit on man, and relish his accomplishments. It's also about their morals. Look at any painting or sculpture in the history of European art. Every other one contains a nude. There must be a link.

Again, I think you only know a very specific subset who's particular proclivities don't measure the whole. I've known very spiritual and religious artists and philosophers. They are a subset of humanity as a whole and are a riddled in their demographics as any other subset.

As for your conjecture regarding artists and their morality, no offense, but that's bunk. Painting or sculpting a nude does not speak to moral decay or, indeed, moral anything. An artist attempts to reproduce beauty, however they define it, and possibly include social commentary at the same time. One of the more interesting figures an artist may choose is the human body in all it's infinate variety and substance. Religious artists, both past and present, have been perfectly capable of appreciating the nude as a subject.

I've got no problem with religion, I have a problem with religious fanatics.

As long as their is democracy their will be no stabillity. Violence and civil disorder will prevail. And anarchy will emerge.
"To show mercy on the merciful and cruelty on the cruel"
Alansysim's stance on all topics.

Catholics are Nazis!So suddenly my Hispanic family is composed of Nazis? :evil:

Well, I'd think that scientists would automatically discredit God, accrediting everything to the laws of physics. It amazes me to this day to find religious scientists, and believe me, I know a few in fields one'd never expect. Being that my hometown, Rochester, NY, is a hub for optical research, I know some very religious optical engineers and physicists.

It's not all that surprising. Many scientists hold spiritual views of one stripe or another. There seems to be this fundamental generalization that when one becomes a scientist, one must become this predefined, souless automaton who's only purpose for existance is to acquire knowledge. In fact, scientists and those who devote their lives to increasing human knolwedge are fundamentally curious individuals who have a sincere desire and fascination with how it all works. Why would they limit themselves and thier curiosity to only one field of inquiry, particularly when spiritual inquiry is highly personal and can be accomplished with relatively few computers and almost no expensive glass ware?


All of the philosophers and serious artists that I know, however, are athiests. And that amazes me.
Then again, I have a theory on why artists are athiests. They place credit on man, and relish his accomplishments. It's also about their morals. Look at any painting or sculpture in the history of European art. Every other one contains a nude. There must be a link.

Again, I think you only know a very specific subset who's particular proclivities don't measure the whole. I've known very spiritual and religious artists and philosophers. They are a subset of humanity as a whole and are a riddled in their demographics as any other subset.

As for your conjecture regarding artists and their morality, no offense, but that's bunk. Painting or sculpting a nude does not speak to moral decay or, indeed, moral anything. An artist attempts to reproduce beauty, however they define it, and possibly include social commentary at the same time. One of the more interesting figures an artist may choose is the human body in all it's infinate variety and substance. Religious artists, both past and present, have been perfectly capable of appreciating the nude as a subject.
Painting nudes alone indicates nothing, but then again, I'm reading an art history book right now. Very insightful. It talks about one school of art that first emerged in the seventeenth century, and I believe it's called Bacchanial. Anyhow, the artist uses several nudes in that painting, and glorifies them. The overall motif is that the human body, and human achievement, must be celebrated. In addition, most of these paintings are an open invitation to living a carefree, guiltless life. The earliest example is Nicolas Poussin's painting The Triumph of Aphrodite. It makes me wonder if previous nudes were somehow an attempt to convey this. It's likely. After all, even mideival artists gravitated towards painting Adam and Eve, the only ones they could get away with painting nudes.
Other than that, I agree with you on the scientists. But the artists I'm still coming to grips with. I know few artists, and have only met a few philosophers. But they are all athiests, or very secular.

Painting nudes alone indicates nothing, but then again, I'm reading an art history book right now. Very insightful. It talks about one school of art that first emerged in the seventeenth century, and I believe it's called Bacchanial. Anyhow, the artist uses several nudes in that painting, and glorifies them. The overall motif is that the human body, and human achievement, must be celebrated. In addition, most of these paintings are an open invitation to living a carefree, guiltless life. The earliest example is Nicolas Poussin's painting The Triumph of Aphrodite. It makes me wonder if previous nudes were somehow an attempt to convey this. It's likely. After all, even mideival artists gravitated towards painting Adam and Eve, the only ones they could get away with painting nudes.
Other than that, I agree with you on the scientists. But the artists I'm still coming to grips with. I know few artists, and have only met a few philosophers. But they are all athiests, or very secular.

That's true enough. Over time there have been many artistic schools, some more widespread than others, that do indeed focus on more sensual aspects. Indeed, in Renaissance Florence, under the patronage of the Medicis, secular sensual art flourished along with architexture and humanistic thought, only to come crashing down again with the Bonfire of the Vanities. I'm not sure this tendency of art towards sensuality is any particular indication of a moral licentiousness inherant in the artistic community. Art, by definition, whether it glorifies man or God, is an ultimately human achievement. I see nothing wrong with the glorification of man as we have done some pretty remarkable things. Like any thought, though, it can of course be taken too far and what was once sincere admiration can be perverted into hedonisim and selfishness.

True artists have always functioned a bit out of step with their surroundings. It's this removal that allows them to frame their vision. This isn't to say all artists are inherantly visionary and there are many who claim the title for less than creative motives. However, many artists who may not classify themselves as members of a particular religion still view their works in a spiritual context. While they may be glorifying man, that is ultimately a glorification of whatever spiritual force, be it god or nature, that the strive to imitate and reverence.

Painting nudes alone indicates nothing, but then again, I'm reading an art history book right now. Very insightful. It talks about one school of art that first emerged in the seventeenth century, and I believe it's called Bacchanial. Anyhow, the artist uses several nudes in that painting, and glorifies them. The overall motif is that the human body, and human achievement, must be celebrated. In addition, most of these paintings are an open invitation to living a carefree, guiltless life. The earliest example is Nicolas Poussin's painting The Triumph of Aphrodite. It makes me wonder if previous nudes were somehow an attempt to convey this. It's likely. After all, even mideival artists gravitated towards painting Adam and Eve, the only ones they could get away with painting nudes.
Other than that, I agree with you on the scientists. But the artists I'm still coming to grips with. I know few artists, and have only met a few philosophers. But they are all athiests, or very secular.

That's true enough. Over time there have been many artistic schools, some more widespread than others, that do indeed focus on more sensual aspects. Indeed, in Renaissance Florence, under the patronage of the Medicis, secular sensual art flourished along with architexture and humanistic thought, only to come crashing down again with the Bonfire of the Vanities. I'm not sure this tendency of art towards sensuality is any particular indication of a moral licentiousness inherant in the artistic community. Art, by definition, whether it glorifies man or God, is an ultimately human achievement. I see nothing wrong with the glorification of man as we have done some pretty remarkable things. Like any thought, though, it can of course be taken too far and what was once sincere admiration can be perverted into hedonisim and selfishness.

True artists have always functioned a bit out of step with their surroundings. It's this removal that allows them to frame their vision. This isn't to say all artists are inherantly visionary and there are many who claim the title for less than creative motives. However, many artists who may not classify themselves as members of a particular religion still view their works in a spiritual context. While they may be glorifying man, that is ultimately a glorification of whatever spiritual force, be it god or nature, that the strive to imitate and reverence.
I guess glorification of man was a bad term to use. We all do this. The right term would be treating life as a giant amusement park. No morals, no shame, no guidelines, and no clothes. Just fun, games, and masturbation. Of course, this isn't the philosophy held by all artists, as you've said. But it's enough to make one look at all nude paintings and sculptures, and wonder if the artist wanted to somehow display this motif.
Indeed, nudes were sometimes painted or sculpted a certain way for a reason. Take Donatello's David for example. It was a nude that made him look childish to make him look like an underdog to Goliath. Later Davids, however, were what the Renaissance thought as "idealized". That same ideal is held today: men are buff and handsome, and women are very attractive naked. Therefore, when nudes weren't made to convey a certain message, they were this "idealized" look.
And I wonder what could've been running through these artists' heads. Nearly all of their nude figures were made so that they could only be described as sexy. Perhaps Renaissance artists were crafting how they wanted to look, or what type of women they wanted to sleep with. Indeed, Albretch Durer in his self portrait in 1515 (where he's nude) makes every attempt to idealize him. However, in his earlier self portrait, where he's in his twenties and supposedly stronger, he's a weakling. With all of this evidence, it's reasonable to assume that at least some of the painters and sculptors of nudes were amoral.

Painting nudes alone indicates nothing, but then again, I'm reading an art history book right now. Very insightful. It talks about one school of art that first emerged in the seventeenth century, and I believe it's called Bacchanial. Anyhow, the artist uses several nudes in that painting, and glorifies them. The overall motif is that the human body, and human achievement, must be celebrated. In addition, most of these paintings are an open invitation to living a carefree, guiltless life. The earliest example is Nicolas Poussin's painting The Triumph of Aphrodite. It makes me wonder if previous nudes were somehow an attempt to convey this. It's likely. After all, even mideival artists gravitated towards painting Adam and Eve, the only ones they could get away with painting nudes.
Other than that, I agree with you on the scientists. But the artists I'm still coming to grips with. I know few artists, and have only met a few philosophers. But they are all athiests, or very secular.

That's true enough. Over time there have been many artistic schools, some more widespread than others, that do indeed focus on more sensual aspects. Indeed, in Renaissance Florence, under the patronage of the Medicis, secular sensual art flourished along with architexture and humanistic thought, only to come crashing down again with the Bonfire of the Vanities. I'm not sure this tendency of art towards sensuality is any particular indication of a moral licentiousness inherant in the artistic community. Art, by definition, whether it glorifies man or God, is an ultimately human achievement. I see nothing wrong with the glorification of man as we have done some pretty remarkable things. Like any thought, though, it can of course be taken too far and what was once sincere admiration can be perverted into hedonisim and selfishness.

True artists have always functioned a bit out of step with their surroundings. It's this removal that allows them to frame their vision. This isn't to say all artists are inherantly visionary and there are many who claim the title for less than creative motives. However, many artists who may not classify themselves as members of a particular religion still view their works in a spiritual context. While they may be glorifying man, that is ultimately a glorification of whatever spiritual force, be it god or nature, that the strive to imitate and reverence.
I guess glorification of man was a bad term to use. We all do this. The right term would be treating life as a giant amusement park. No morals, no shame, no guidelines, and no clothes. Just fun, games, and masturbation. Of course, this isn't the philosophy held by all artists, as you've said. But it's enough to make one look at all nude paintings and sculptures, and wonder if the artist wanted to somehow display this motif.
Indeed, nudes were sometimes painted or sculpted a certain way for a reason. Take Donatello's David for example. It was a nude that made him look childish to make him look like an underdog to Goliath. Later Davids, however, were what the Renaissance thought as "idealized". That same ideal is held today: men are buff and handsome, and women are very attractive naked. Therefore, when nudes weren't made to convey a certain message, they were this "idealized" look.
And I wonder what could've been running through these artists' heads. Nearly all of their nude figures were made so that they could only be described as sexy. Perhaps Renaissance artists were crafting how they wanted to look, or what type of women they wanted to sleep with. Indeed, Albretch Durer in his self portrait in 1515 (where he's nude) makes every attempt to idealize him. However, in his earlier self portrait, where he's in his twenties and supposedly stronger, he's a weakling. With all of this evidence, it's reasonable to assume that at least some of the painters and sculptors of nudes were amoral.

I guess glorification of man was a bad term to use. We all do this. The right term would be treating life as a giant amusement park. No morals, no shame, no guidelines, and no clothes. Just fun, games, and masturbation. Of course, this isn't the philosophy held by all artists, as you've said. But it's enough to make one look at all nude paintings and sculptures, and wonder if the artist wanted to somehow display this motif.
Indeed, nudes were sometimes painted or sculpted a certain way for a reason. Take Donatello's David for example. It was a nude that made him look childish to make him look like an underdog to Goliath. Later Davids, however, were what the Renaissance thought as "idealized". That same ideal is held today: men are buff and handsome, and women are very attractive naked. Therefore, when nudes weren't made to convey a certain message, they were this "idealized" look.
And I wonder what could've been running through these artists' heads. Nearly all of their nude figures were made so that they could only be described as sexy. Perhaps Renaissance artists were crafting how they wanted to look, or what type of women they wanted to sleep with. Indeed, Albretch Durer in his self portrait in 1515 (where he's nude) makes every attempt to idealize him. However, in his earlier self portrait, where he's in his twenties and supposedly stronger, he's a weakling. With all of this evidence, it's reasonable to assume that at least some of the painters and sculptors of nudes were amoral.

Well, I understand what you're saying, but I think the problem is that you are equating sexuality and senuality with immorality and the two aren't always hand in hand. I'm sure many artist's personal tastes have influenced their work. How could they not? However, just because something is sexy or sesual doesn't mean it's automatically immoral. I think this is one of the primary, yet ineffible, differences between art and pornography. In art, an attempt is made to reproduce beauty or make social commentary. Either way, it's more than just a "dirty picture." Pornography, on the other hand, makes no bones (er, forgive the pun) about it's purpose: sexual voyerisim.

I guess glorification of man was a bad term to use. We all do this. The right term would be treating life as a giant amusement park. No morals, no shame, no guidelines, and no clothes. Just fun, games, and masturbation. Of course, this isn't the philosophy held by all artists, as you've said. But it's enough to make one look at all nude paintings and sculptures, and wonder if the artist wanted to somehow display this motif.
Indeed, nudes were sometimes painted or sculpted a certain way for a reason. Take Donatello's David for example. It was a nude that made him look childish to make him look like an underdog to Goliath. Later Davids, however, were what the Renaissance thought as "idealized". That same ideal is held today: men are buff and handsome, and women are very attractive naked. Therefore, when nudes weren't made to convey a certain message, they were this "idealized" look.
And I wonder what could've been running through these artists' heads. Nearly all of their nude figures were made so that they could only be described as sexy. Perhaps Renaissance artists were crafting how they wanted to look, or what type of women they wanted to sleep with. Indeed, Albretch Durer in his self portrait in 1515 (where he's nude) makes every attempt to idealize him. However, in his earlier self portrait, where he's in his twenties and supposedly stronger, he's a weakling. With all of this evidence, it's reasonable to assume that at least some of the painters and sculptors of nudes were amoral.

Well, I understand what you're saying, but I think the problem is that you are equating sexuality and senuality with immorality and the two aren't always hand in hand. I'm sure many artist's personal tastes have influenced their work. How could they not? However, just because something is sexy or sesual doesn't mean it's automatically immoral. I think this is one of the primary, yet ineffible, differences between art and pornography. In art, an attempt is made to reproduce beauty or make social commentary. Either way, it's more than just a "dirty picture." Pornography, on the other hand, makes no bones (er, forgive the pun) about it's purpose: sexual voyerisim.

I guess glorification of man was a bad term to use. We all do this. The right term would be treating life as a giant amusement park. No morals, no shame, no guidelines, and no clothes. Just fun, games, and masturbation. Of course, this isn't the philosophy held by all artists, as you've said. But it's enough to make one look at all nude paintings and sculptures, and wonder if the artist wanted to somehow display this motif.
Indeed, nudes were sometimes painted or sculpted a certain way for a reason. Take Donatello's David for example. It was a nude that made him look childish to make him look like an underdog to Goliath. Later Davids, however, were what the Renaissance thought as "idealized". That same ideal is held today: men are buff and handsome, and women are very attractive naked. Therefore, when nudes weren't made to convey a certain message, they were this "idealized" look.
And I wonder what could've been running through these artists' heads. Nearly all of their nude figures were made so that they could only be described as sexy. Perhaps Renaissance artists were crafting how they wanted to look, or what type of women they wanted to sleep with. Indeed, Albretch Durer in his self portrait in 1515 (where he's nude) makes every attempt to idealize him. However, in his earlier self portrait, where he's in his twenties and supposedly stronger, he's a weakling. With all of this evidence, it's reasonable to assume that at least some of the painters and sculptors of nudes were amoral.

Well, I understand what you're saying, but I think the problem is that you are equating sexuality and senuality with immorality and the two aren't always hand in hand. I'm sure many artist's personal tastes have influenced their work. How could they not? However, just because something is sexy or sesual doesn't mean it's automatically immoral. I think this is one of the primary, yet ineffible, differences between art and pornography. In art, an attempt is made to reproduce beauty or make social commentary. Either way, it's more than just a "dirty picture." Pornography, on the other hand, makes no bones (er, forgive the pun) about it's purpose: sexual voyerisim.

I guess glorification of man was a bad term to use. We all do this. The right term would be treating life as a giant amusement park. No morals, no shame, no guidelines, and no clothes. Just fun, games, and masturbation. Of course, this isn't the philosophy held by all artists, as you've said. But it's enough to make one look at all nude paintings and sculptures, and wonder if the artist wanted to somehow display this motif.
Indeed, nudes were sometimes painted or sculpted a certain way for a reason. Take Donatello's David for example. It was a nude that made him look childish to make him look like an underdog to Goliath. Later Davids, however, were what the Renaissance thought as "idealized". That same ideal is held today: men are buff and handsome, and women are very attractive naked. Therefore, when nudes weren't made to convey a certain message, they were this "idealized" look.
And I wonder what could've been running through these artists' heads. Nearly all of their nude figures were made so that they could only be described as sexy. Perhaps Renaissance artists were crafting how they wanted to look, or what type of women they wanted to sleep with. Indeed, Albretch Durer in his self portrait in 1515 (where he's nude) makes every attempt to idealize him. However, in his earlier self portrait, where he's in his twenties and supposedly stronger, he's a weakling. With all of this evidence, it's reasonable to assume that at least some of the painters and sculptors of nudes were amoral.

Well, I understand what you're saying, but I think the problem is that you are equating sexuality and senuality with immorality and the two aren't always hand in hand. I'm sure many artist's personal tastes have influenced their work. How could they not? However, just because something is sexy or sesual doesn't mean it's automatically immoral. I think this is one of the primary, yet ineffible, differences between art and pornography. In art, an attempt is made to reproduce beauty or make social commentary. Either way, it's more than just a "dirty picture." Pornography, on the other hand, makes no bones (er, forgive the pun) about it's purpose: sexual voyerisim.

I guess glorification of man was a bad term to use. We all do this. The right term would be treating life as a giant amusement park. No morals, no shame, no guidelines, and no clothes. Just fun, games, and masturbation. Of course, this isn't the philosophy held by all artists, as you've said. But it's enough to make one look at all nude paintings and sculptures, and wonder if the artist wanted to somehow display this motif.
Indeed, nudes were sometimes painted or sculpted a certain way for a reason. Take Donatello's David for example. It was a nude that made him look childish to make him look like an underdog to Goliath. Later Davids, however, were what the Renaissance thought as "idealized". That same ideal is held today: men are buff and handsome, and women are very attractive naked. Therefore, when nudes weren't made to convey a certain message, they were this "idealized" look.
And I wonder what could've been running through these artists' heads. Nearly all of their nude figures were made so that they could only be described as sexy. Perhaps Renaissance artists were crafting how they wanted to look, or what type of women they wanted to sleep with. Indeed, Albretch Durer in his self portrait in 1515 (where he's nude) makes every attempt to idealize him. However, in his earlier self portrait, where he's in his twenties and supposedly stronger, he's a weakling. With all of this evidence, it's reasonable to assume that at least some of the painters and sculptors of nudes were amoral.

Well, I understand what you're saying, but I think the problem is that you are equating sexuality and senuality with immorality and the two aren't always hand in hand. I'm sure many artist's personal tastes have influenced their work. How could they not? However, just because something is sexy or sesual doesn't mean it's automatically immoral. I think this is one of the primary, yet ineffible, differences between art and pornography. In art, an attempt is made to reproduce beauty or make social commentary. Either way, it's more than just a "dirty picture." Pornography, on the other hand, makes no bones (er, forgive the pun) about it's purpose: sexual voyerisim.

I guess glorification of man was a bad term to use. We all do this. The right term would be treating life as a giant amusement park. No morals, no shame, no guidelines, and no clothes. Just fun, games, and masturbation. Of course, this isn't the philosophy held by all artists, as you've said. But it's enough to make one look at all nude paintings and sculptures, and wonder if the artist wanted to somehow display this motif.
Indeed, nudes were sometimes painted or sculpted a certain way for a reason. Take Donatello's David for example. It was a nude that made him look childish to make him look like an underdog to Goliath. Later Davids, however, were what the Renaissance thought as "idealized". That same ideal is held today: men are buff and handsome, and women are very attractive naked. Therefore, when nudes weren't made to convey a certain message, they were this "idealized" look.
And I wonder what could've been running through these artists' heads. Nearly all of their nude figures were made so that they could only be described as sexy. Perhaps Renaissance artists were crafting how they wanted to look, or what type of women they wanted to sleep with. Indeed, Albretch Durer in his self portrait in 1515 (where he's nude) makes every attempt to idealize him. However, in his earlier self portrait, where he's in his twenties and supposedly stronger, he's a weakling. With all of this evidence, it's reasonable to assume that at least some of the painters and sculptors of nudes were amoral.

Well, I understand what you're saying, but I think the problem is that you are equating sexuality and senuality with immorality and the two aren't always hand in hand. I'm sure many artist's personal tastes have influenced their work. How could they not? However, just because something is sexy or sesual doesn't mean it's automatically immoral. I think this is one of the primary, yet ineffible, differences between art and pornography. In art, an attempt is made to reproduce beauty or make social commentary. Either way, it's more than just a "dirty picture." Pornography, on the other hand, makes no bones (er, forgive the pun) about it's purpose: sexual voyerisim.
Sorry. When I write long paragraphs, I tend to loose my point in babble. Anyhow, there are many meaningless nude sculptures. Quite a few, especially in the Bacchanial school, do border on pornography.
And is sexiness automatically immoral? To the overly prudish, yes, but otherwise, no. However, it's just enough to make one question the artist's motives. Is he trying something akin to Bacchanialism? I'm not saying this makes the art bad, there is no such thing as bad art. There is, however, such a thing as a bad artist, or an immoral artist. Besides, if these artists were truely religious, they would use nudes only in the most modest of ways. Micheangelo has many non-modest nudes on the Sistene Chapel roof. In fact, one of the few covered people is the Sybyl of Cumae, an old soothsayer from Roman legend. Now, as he purposely left her clothed, what does that tell you about what Micheangelo felt?