Scientific advancement without morals and spirituality to control from Word revealed from the Creator-God Allah YHWH could destroy humanity
That is the most danger posed to humanity. A man living in Hiroshima or Nagasaki; what benefit accrued to him from the scientific advancement uncontrolled by morals and spirituality?
What benefit accrued a woman in Saudi stoned to death for adultery? You have no morals or spirituality. Please stop starting fights.
it is called height of morality...well we all know how religion treats people who dont believe in their version...so it is moral..
Mark, I finally may actually disagree with you. He just might have a point about the dangers of technology. Without advance technology it would not have been possible for only a handful of Gods worriers to brutally cut the throats of defenseless flight attendants and fly two airliners into the trade towers. Again, advanced technology has made it much too easy to set powerful remote controlled explosives used to kill those pesky infidel pilgrims on their way to pray. How dare they have a different belief system. It’s a lot harder to kill and terrorize when you only have a wooden club. Just wait until the morality police get their hands on something really dangerous.
Just Joking. This religious forum stuff is so bizarre.
I hope you have the ability to understand I was mocking those psychotic murders (the terrorist that destroyed the Trade Towers). Just for my own understanding of you and your beliefs concerning religion do you denounce this kind of killing or do you make excuses for or find a way to rationalize the need to kill or punish those that dare to not accept a particular religious belief?
Paarsurrey, I still do not understand what you are trying to say. It is simple, do you support this type of killing in the name of religion or do you denounce it as a purely evil act committed against the teachings of whatever Holy Book you consider sacred.
I don’t support this type of killings in the name of religion; I denounce it and my religious book Quran does not allow such type of evil acts. Such act has nothing to do with religion; it is pure politics.
morality and creator has nothing to do with each other at first place..if you want view channels on nature to understand how world actually works..
morality is human trait and can be induced with or without religion...science is THE thing...science can falsify ignorance which controls human race since centuries.. If we can teach morality without getting into religion and club it with science ..it would be right path...
i agree with you that without morality science can turn destructive ...but most religions have taken help from science to expand..be it be sword or wheels or arrows..all are science's products which religion has used ...in today's world fanatics of religions are using bombs ..see pakistan or afganistan or iraq...
the ideal direction human race can take is scientific growth along with moral inducement without religion...
Science turns destructive? how? Science has nothing to do with political inclination of people. Morality is subjective,so is usage of science.
how?...well who uses science?...so moral values does have its role to play...but religion is not ideal thing to preach morality...
Take example of knife. You can cut onions or liver, its upto you. Knife isn't destructive but the weilder makes it so.
agreed..science on its own is not destructive..i agree with you..
Science of its own is not destrictive but it has caused destruction in the world , unparalled previously in the human history.
Truthful Religion of itself is also beneficial for the human race, if misused and in the hands of the zealots; it could also bring harm.
We have to strike a balance and have the most of the both to live peacefully in this world; that is the sane approach.
Hold on a min. Paar. There is a difference between people who use science for destructive means, and just science alone.
People have to apply the technology to kill with, Science of its own is just science.
Now, religion, it kills- on that part I agree with you. It can become a reason (and never a good one) for people to apply that available science.
"Morality is subjective"!
If morality is subjective, if there are no absolutes in morality, no point where we can commonly agree that this thing is morally correct and that thing is morally wrong....
Then we have lost the plot, and anything that one wishes to do is to be condoned without constraint.
Best summed up by the Satanists credo:
"Do what you will is the extent of the law"
as opposed to what Christ stated:
"Nevertheless, you will, not mine"
ofcourse morality is subjective..in some parts of world..eating non veg is immoral while in many it isn't...in certain cirumstance murder too in not immoral thing to do...like usa soldiers killing terrorist...so morality is never absolute thing..
Only point on which we agree is that our species needs to survive & multiply on this planet. Period.
Other species survival, morality, entertainment etc comes in leisure time. When imdividual has its life in trouble then there is no way mass control with quotes of christ and satan is going to work.
I am not sure about morals, however you may have a point if you are talking about spiritual evolution in relationship to technological advancement. If spiritual evolution is lagging then we have a problem.
During the WWII Germany had the fastest planes, the longest guns, the fastest tanks, V-2 rockets and so forth. There were technologically advance for during that time. But due to lagging spirituality they gassed millions of Jews with this technology.. However, it is better to have technological advancement to lag instead of spirituality evolution.
Today there are similar concerns will Iran and Pakistan. Their support for terrorists and having nuclear bombs is a serious concern. They seem to be spiritually primitive.
I agree with you; we can have both if we have that in mind.
As for morality it changes from place to place. It also changes from time to time for each location.
For example certain thing are morally acceptable in the US and may not be acceptable in Saudi Arabia. It is not morally acceptable for a woman to drive a car in Saudi Arabia, however this is not the case in US.
During the Victorian era in England, it was not morally acceptable for woman to wear a bikini. But now it is OK.
Morality has nothing to do with God. Man makes morals.
Goes to show how much you understand.
Morals, are MAN-MADE.
Morals, are tied to physical actions of human beings. Morality is a human concept. Created by Man, Established by Man and only MAN can implement them.
Thoughts cannot be moral or immoral. Individual thoughts have NO effect on other people, until action is taken.
That is the point world and humanity should focus on; without restraint of the divine morals the technology could be misused to destroy the human race off the face of the globe.
people will use whatever means to kill each other - whether by spears, knives, guns or bombs. It doesn't make the technology "wrong" - as always, its the people doing it. As for the lack of spirituality claim - why are so many wars caused by religion then?
So spiritual progress is essential for advancement of mankind; I agree.
Science is not destructive. It is a tool human beings use daily. How each person puts it to use is the problem.
As for morality coming from religion? Please refrain from using religion as a moral standard. It is more than obvious that religion is a double standard, do as I say not as I do mentality.
As for those who claim morality is subjective? And has no absolutes? That would also be incorrect, even without religion.
If you need a definition of moral absolutes, please refer to my hub on the definition of morality.
However, the terms used to define other aspects, could be subjective and/or manipulated by those who have their own agenda.
Religion is not destructive either; it is a way to reach the Creator-God Allah YHWH; nearness to Him in status.
That's your opinion. It is actually destructive because it limits the conscious state of a human being if used. There is no upside, only down. Therefore, it is destructive.
Proven fact. You're inability to make a rational or sane discussion on any topic.
Thank you for proving my point.
Now what have I told you, Cagsil, about being nice to other fellow Hubbers????
What? Pointing out the obvious, isn't always nice or mean. You cannot have it both ways you know. He constantly opens irrational arguments that are dismissed, yet not willing to admit when he isn't being completely honest with himself, much less anyone else.
Irrational and insane must be addressed when spouted. But, cute fairy/pixie you bring forth. Thank you for not adding something to the conversation. Much appreciated.
Relax Cags! I was playing with you! Geeeez!
Oh boy. Another gamer playing in a serious discussion...great.
well cagsil, i can agree with you on what you on some of the things you said, as your right. religion does tend to have a lot dubious double standards, as the film "Angels & Demons" a priest even went on record saying, "religion is flawed because humanity is flawed." Thus, your right about that.
However, in some cases of science, morality issues can...and DO pop up believe it or not. Like Embryo Stem Cell research. Many believe that stem cell research is wrong because it involves the use of using cells from unborn babies and using them to cure people that are dying of such diseases like Parkinson's disease. However, on the other side of the fence, another person could argue that using the advancement of stem cell research could inevitably lead to other great scientific breakthroughs like curing a person who's blind, curing cancer, or whatever.
Then we can talk about the matter of cloning. Cloning is another highly controversial scientific achievement that many countries in the world have banned. Why? Because there's many that argue about how inhumane it is to make a living organism suffer if the cloning process fails. Or we might not be able to control what we clone. plus, even if we could clone animals and people successfully, there would be other moral paradoxes to consider. One, how would clones be treated within society? Would someone look at a clone the same way they'd look at another human being? Or would they become like a lower class of people in the eyes of everyone else? these are some moral paradoxes that could happen and if cloning was possible, then would it be right for us to have them live in a world where they're treated as second class citizens for what they are?
Then we get into the aspect of genetic engineering. Some scientists have found ways to genetically alter a person's DNA structure before they're even born to eliminate flaws about them that could come up in a natural born child. Such instance like deafness, blindness or mental disabilities could all be the thing of the past with genetic engineering. However, here's the wrinkle in that logic, what about the people that can't afford it? Or the people that are forced to live with people that are genetically altered. Would it be fair for you to compete a person that's allegedly genetically engineered to be physically and mentally superior to you in every fathomable way? What if this ends up creating an entirely new social class of people where normal people like you and me could end up finding ourselves as second class citizens as we were not born with the luxury of having our cells genetically altered to be at the peak of human perfection. Watch the film, "Gattaca", if you want to know more about what I'm talking about.
Anyways, I hope you don't take this personal and insult me like you always do, as you seem to take everything i say to you personally if im not kissing your butt. however, im merely having a light hearted discussion with you about your opinion. please remember that if your responding to this please. thank you.
Stop for a second and think about what you just said here. Unborn babies? What status are these babies? And, are they going to be living a life at some point? If not, then the argument is just a distraction tactic, to prevent science from expanding life or the quality of life. Some of the reasons it is a moral issue is strictly related to religious influence and nothing more. Thus, it is meaningless.
This is precisely what religious leaders are trying to prevent. They see it as playing "god".
I do not approve of cloning. There is no reason for cloning, when cures can be found.
Once cloned, it has free will to make choices, therefore, no one is to control it. That's the problem. No control can be granted. Especially if human. Therefore, banned.
There is no paradox for cloning animals. It would produce more resources providing it's done properly. This cannot be a bad thing regardless. Animal rights groups are a thing of the past and should disappear like they should have.
Animals or Humans? Animals as I said above more resources. Humans, no it should not be done.
That's one of the problems- a new sort of racism would be born if cloning humans was allowed. Therefore, world banning of it is necessary.
The natural process of birthing is to take place before science can be allowed to take any sort of affect/effect.
No need to watch movie. Seen it in bits and pieces and found it boring. As for altering humans to the peak of perfection? Again, science is not to get involved, until the birthing process is completed. Parents who grew up with down-syndrome are likely to have children with it, but there is always a possibility that the child will be born without it. Therefore, birth must come first. Not a prevention position to stop it from happening in the first place. That's a no-no.
I don't take things personal. I look at things from a rational and sane aspect, and if your argument warrants to be rude in commentary, because of a lack of knowledge or wisdom of life, then so be it. Otherwise, I have no issue with talking with you. Please, try not to assume I always do what you say I do, because that's not always the case.
damn, i can't believe im writing this twice now. sorry, it seems like everytime i try to respond to you cags, my pc keeps messing up and deleting my message.
okay...well its a shame i don't really have the patience now to type everything...AGAIN...so i'll just respond to your last remark, as i originally wanted to.
Cagsil...as far as making assumptions go, i should tell you that I never have made any assumptions about you at all. never. quite to the contrary, as i don't even think about you outside of hubpages. Besides, i only mentioned that last part earlier because you got easily offended when i commented on a opinion you stated in another forum, where my only intention was to have a light hearted conversation with you. Yet you took it offensively and attacked me by calling me egotistical and petty for commenting on another person's opinion. Yet I see various other people do that to you, but you treat them with the uptmost respect and you do that yourself too. That's why I mentioned it, as it seems like you always try to paint this picture of me of being some narrow minded person, when in reality i probably the most open minded person you'll ever meet.
In fact, cags let me give you an insight to what kind of person i am if you haven't figured it out. One, i don't hate you nor do i have any problems with you. never have. no, my philosophy is you treat me with respect and i'll treat you with respect. that's all.
secondly, i base all my opinions on people based solely on their interactions with me. if you treat me like dirt, then chances are im going to hate you or not like you. if you treat me with respect but you don't get along with others, then i'll treat you with respect and not bother asking you about your relationship with everyone else. Why? because it has nothing to do with me and it's none of my business anyways. besides, i know there's always two sides to every story, as i always make it a point to analyze both sides of the story before coming to a conclusion. besides, haven't you ever heard or seen the foreign film, "Rashomon?" that's another reason why i don't consider myself a democrat or a republican for that very reason, as both of them never try to see the other's point of view. same with religion forums on here. i find it comical that you all debate stuff like that, but nobody ever once tries to actually listen to the other. no, it's more of a form to prove who's right and who's wrong versus sharing ideas and trying to understand the other parties point of view.
therefore cags, if i say something about you specifically, im basing it solely on how our interactions have been with each other. i never go based on blind assumptions, as im a highly analytical person.
that's another thing you should know about me, as i do analyze every conversation (whether online or real life) thoroughly. Plus, i have the memory of a damn elephant, where i can forgive people...but i never forget. trust me, i have memories dating back to when i was like six years old, and i can still tell you about it like it happened yesterday. therefore, if i say something about you, im basing it off of my own observations and analysis of our conversations collectively. however, i never formulate biased opinions of anything based off blind assumptions. trust me, if you ever taken the time to get to know me, you'll find im probably more open minded to things than you probably give me credit for.
Interesting response Steven and that's about all I'm going to say about it.
i'll tell you what cags, why don't we start over here between the two of us. as i think our relationship kind of got off on the wrong foot since we first met. besides, life is too short for grudges or fighting anyways. i thought you brought up some valid points, and i agree with you about the process of genetic engineering and cloning. although i don't know if i agree with you about the animal rights groups, as im sure michael vick would disagree.
I don't hold grudges and I don't fight. I also don't regret my actions either. I'm too conscious for it.
Nice to know.
I have no problem with what Michael Vick did about dogs fighting. It was part of the culture he grew up in and for the animal rights groups, like I said, they need to go away. We use animals to feed ourselves as a species. Outside the U.S. dogs and cats are food in some places. If you're going to have "animal rights", then it should apply to all animals, like human rights should apply to all humans. But, since we need to eat as a part of living...only certain animals are slaughtered and certain ones are given rights. To me, that is stupid.
(sighs) whatever. i tried to make peace with you. as far as regretting actions go, i wasn't suggesting anything like that, nor was I expecting an apology from you. heck, all i meant was that we both agree to just start over and let by gones by gones. however, since you didn't mention a response for that part...i'm assuming your either agreeing to do that...or your saying that your mad at me. either way, i give up with you cags. if life has taught me one thing, it's that people assume what they want to believe. believe me cags, i don't think your a bad guy at all. no, i never have. however, i do think we may have our differences at times, but who doesn't? After all, we're all human right? And we're both MEN.
oh by the way, as far as the michael vick statement goes, i was JOKING with you about that. i see you in the nfl forums all the time, and thought that i'd tried to joke with you about that. not that i would ever make light out of animal cruelty, but it more of a joke at michael vick if anything else. before you say i shouldn't make a joke at his expense, the reality is he brought it on himself. as my philosophy on crimes are..."don't do the crime if you can't serve the time." as far as the rest of your statement goes on whole issue, im going to ignore that and pretend i didn't hear you say that. trust me, it's for the best if i do that.
Again cags, i mean no ill offense to you. If i offended you, then I do apologize. As my intentions are never to hurt anyone..unless they try to hurt me. Then that's when I do make exceptions to the rule. However, I do think your good person, as i do consider myself an excellent judge in character. However, you can take this comment for what it's worth, but that's my final answer to you. if your willing to accept my apology to you, then we can move on. If not, then I tried. I think your a good person cagsil, but your not always right about everything. Nobody ever is. You have a good night cagsil.
Steven, I am not mad at you. WOW!
Now you make no sense. First you want to start over then you give up?
If you learned the from life, then you need to get out more and meet some new people.
Yes Steven we are both human men.
Yes, he committed the crime.
Correct. I'll agree.
Oh you want to dismiss what I said, because you have a different opinion? How can what I said be wrong? If you treat one kind of animal one way, then you treat all of them. Otherwise, isn't it to be consider animal segregation, just like racism is with regarding rights of humans? Are you going dismiss the fact that people in other countries actually eat dogs and cats? Since you are ignoring my comments on those, I can only "assume" you are either grossed out by it or offended. Either way, the U.S. is only one a few countries that have laws regarding specific animals.
Would please get over it already. You couldn't possibly say anything that would offend me. As much as you think I have an ego, like many others...I don't get offended easily and if I do, then I will do as I tell others to do...I'll see past my ego and self-evaluate. But, if I do and I'm still offended? Then what? Do you have an answer for that question?
I don't even go that far on any intention. If someone hurts me, it would depend on the severity of the hurt, before I strike back. Therefore, in theory, someone could kill me in one shot and I would stand there and take it. Simply because I would not know the severity of it until it's too late.
You seems to think you have to apologize for something. I don't get it. Move on already. Damn man. You spent this entire post explaining yourself and your apparent issues with me, and not on topic? And people say I have to get over myself? WOW!
Dude, you need to learn to relax....go get laid or something.
On a side note- please refrain from trying to think about when I am right or wrong? You'll only drive yourself insane. There are too many subjects I'll discuss and be in the wrong. Because, most of them are already thought out. If I am not sure of something, then I will tell you I am not sure of something.
well put cags. as far as your comment about the animal thing, im not disagreeing or agreeing you with you, as i get what your saying. it's the same thing when people put on petitions to save a cute little squirrel that's endangered, but nobody cares about a bug that's endangered because it's not considered cute. however, i just lost a dog a month ago so if i say anything, it'll be biased and i may end up speaking out of emotions there on ya. therefore, that's why im choosing not to respond to your comment on the dog fighting thing, as it'll only anger me.
Anyways, are we cool though? yeah, after reading everything that happened between us, i think i have been allowing my emotions to get the better of me. something that i thought i had control over, but it seems i don't. i guess that's what happens when you over work yourself too much. anyways, sorry for taking over the thread.
Hi friend Stevennix2001
I appreciate your above three points.
What if we flipped the sentence around and it became "religious advancement without science to control."??
Right. Doesn't make much sense that way either!
Source of morals is the same who created the human beings; the Creator-God Allah YHWH gave the morals to human beings.
Without check of the divine morals the technology could sometimes perish the whole world
To be honest i had big session here on ethics and morality. So i agree that these two things play role in science. But i disagree with you on spirituality.
LOL. Muhammad attacking pagans ? Hitler attacking minority ? Bush attacking afghan, pakistan ? pakistanis attacking india ?
Were there any pagans in Mecca? The Meccans were Ishmaelites off-spring of Abraham; they believed in Allah; they also worshipped idols though
Paar I am geting sick and tired of you saying Creator -God Allah YHWH, God is Christian, Allah is Muslim , YHWH is Jewish, stick with your Allah the Christian's and Jew's want nothing to do with Allah ok NOW STOP IT
god is god..how can there be muslim god , christian god or jew god?
Sorry;I can't change the facts. Due to different languages people call the Creator-God Allah YHWH with different names; all those good names are acceptable to Him, so I cannot choose just one for Him:
[7:181] And to Allah alone belong all perfect attributes*. So call on Him by these. And leave alone those who deviate from the right way with respect to His attributes. They shall be repaid for what they do.
http://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/sh … ;verse=180
Don't worry; you will become used to it; and if you understand then you would also be doing the same; no compulsion.
agreed YHWH is purly JEWISH
ALLAH is purly ISLAM
God is purly Christian
yet you still say Creator-God Allah YHWH I guess you want to mention all 3 Gods in case you followed the wrong one. I will tell you this EVEN the Jews CLAIM YHWH as their own, yet you asswer that YWAH even wrote the Quran with the Creator-God Allah, so what parts of the Quran are Jewish???
You don't know what science is.
An atomic bomb is not science. A plane is not science. A hammer is not science. These are tools. Science is a method, a way of thinking.
There is no scientific reason to bomb a country. And even if there was, there is no 'should' to go along with it. Science could tell you objectively that for some reason it'd be profitable or beneficial for you to commit mass murder, but it won't tell you it's what should be done.
I agree with you; it is not a job of science to see the good or bad dimensions of a scientific method; these relate to ethical, moral and spiritual aspects of life; more related to religion.
They are related to religion because religion adopted them, but they need not be.
Because religion is not necessary. Would you deny that you can be a good and honest person without adhering to a pre-established set of supernatural beliefs?
The only thing needed to be good is to think of others and be aware, there is no need for a superior being to act as a mediator.
What do you mean by "pre-established"? You mean before the big bang or after it.?
"What do you mean by "pre-established"? You mean before the big bang or after it.?"
I wasn't talking about the big bang at all, don't know where you got that idea. Morals have nothing to do with the Universe.
By pre-established I meant tradition and rituals. Religious values are a set of rules that are established before hand, by other people, and given to you to follow and obbey; as in opposed to making and forging your own values and principles.
I don't agree with you.
Strange enough; are the morals out of the Universe. Universe is the sapce in which life flourishes and time evloves life and ethics, moral and spiritual polish it; this all is being done as set by the Creator-God Allah YHWH; since the time he said "be" and the Universe starting being and evolving.
Nothing is pre-established from the period pre-big bang period; all is being done freshly on the appropriate time and on the proper occasion; this is moral. Things done inappropriately or not on the proper occasion or not done pro-life or done not according to the Word of Creator- God Allah YHWH are immoral; and if done according to it are moral.
by lanablackmoor 10 years ago
Do you think religion compels morality, or does morality determine religion?Obviously the relationship is somewhat multi-directional for most people, but I'm wondering which you think is more powerful. Do people usually choose a religion that aligns with their preexisting morality? Or do they...
by SparklingJewel 15 years ago
So I borrowed this idea from Misha to start a new thread.For me, I can give one particular instance where I think science and religion/spirituality are complementary, as crossing each other's boundaries. When I think of energy; where Kirlian photography has proven the existence of the energy...
by Abdus Salaam 7 years ago
Morals are dictated by religions, without using scripture, how would an atheist discourage incest?
by fred allen 11 years ago
Can morality exist without a divine authority?Without absolutes who has the authority to establish moral boundaries? If there is no divine standard, can there be such a thing as morality or right and wrong?
by Jenna Ditsch 11 years ago
Let's say that Religion and the concept of the existence of God was erased from the Earth. How would humans, institutions, and ultimately, societies, determine "moral law" if you will? How would it be determined what is right or wrong? What would that process look...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 8 years ago
advancement couple with the increased education and enlightenment of people, will organized religion hopefully become a relic of the past?
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|