[Is John McCain a war hero?]

I agree with Chiki completely. While I am never good at providing "proof" by pure logic and incontrovertible facts, I don't understand why defending the rights of innocent people to live and condemning the ones who deprived them of life should even need that. Whatever "logical" explanation for the soldiers' actions there may be, scattered pieces of a child's body torn apart by a bomb imo are the best argument agaist any justification of violence, whether this violence is due to soldiers being "stressed by circumstances" or not.

Justice for a criminal is a different matter.

Why? A dead body (especially that of an innocent) is always a dead body.

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

But I don't hate the people who were behind that death, either. Hatred won't bring back the dead.

I personally find it strange. But if hatred won't bring back the dead, then what's the purpose of any kind of law enforcement and legal punishment existing on Earth then? Because a conviction of a felon never brings back the victim, in plenty of cases it can't be even explained with the reason of "him not harming other innocents in the future", because for example if it happened decades ago like with the nazi criminals, they aren't dangerous anymore, yet the law still is after criminals even in cold cases.

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

2, for considering things like reality and the price of war. I have yet to hear a major war that occurred with absolutely no innocent people dying, and I don't think that'll happen, ever. Thus, trying to condemn people for killing innocents IN THAT CONTEXT serves no practical purpose.

But this is only if we consider war a normal and natural thing by default. Real life war is always horrible, it's not like a computer game. By the way, I often ask people who justify war a question, that never receives a direct and explicit answer:

What would you say if you some close relatives of yours were killed in a war?

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

People have differing views on what significance nationality means to them, and for some, it may be too much to ask them to abandon their nation simply because of unethical orders. I'd also be willing to bet none of this seemed as clear for the soldiers themselves as it does to us now - this is all within a context of war, after all.

But it's not a computer game. Soldier or not, patriot or not, when you do your first killing, isn't this always a big stress for a normal person, when they see all these blood splashed, smashed skulls, human intestines outside in pieces etc? It's not like a person can simply say "this is my country, I will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to enforce its position".

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

I mean my point was, you're saying all this now, but do you earnestly believe you'd do what you're saying?

It's not really psychological weakness either way. I think psychological weakness is being unable to go against what your natural instincts tell you or some shit like that, I don't really care because those terms are pretty meaningless as a whole. I am wondering if you would truly be able to interpret an order as something like "killing civilians" given the pressure you will be under. I wouldn't be surprised if its worded in such a way that makes it seem like you're not doing so when you in reality are.

I don't even know what I would do nor do I claim to know what I would do. I imagine it's so much different when you're out there.

I understand, but then it's unlikely I would be ever be in that situation anyway (at least I would have done everything I can to prevent it). Could become a conscientious objector, desert from the army etc. And besides, I don't think they would have accepted me anyway even if I wanted to, because I have a very weak sight (-9 on every eye) and suffer from asthma since birth. It's way better not to be in that situation anyway, rather then becoming psychologically twisted after all the battleground experiences and having a weight from war crimes on my conscience.

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

I don't know, have you been in that situation that you can confidently say that? I'm sure John McCain thought that he would be able to resist torture and take the pain for his country but nope, not quite what happened.

Things change a lot when it is life or death, facing military court or not, and even sometimes how the orders are relayed to you may be different in tone than the reality of the situation. Ever heard of generals who mince words? And besides, I can't imagine being able to differentiate when you're actually in the environment.

I'm sure it's easy as hell to say all of that shit from a comfortable chair at home. I'm not really justifying anything he's done, but I'm saying that you are definitely talking down on a whole subset of people who face a much different and significantly (and I mean SIGNIFICANTLY) more stressful environment than you are right now.

I am sure I wouldn't resist torture (I admit that I am weak and not tough, and I don't blame McCain for cracking under torture), but to pull a trigger on an innocent, this should require a big psychological effort. I am not saying I would pretend to be a hero and making speeches against the commander, I would probably simply freeze when ordered to pull the trigger and be unable to move (even if it's sign of psychological weakness, don't you think it this case it's better being "weak" than being "strong" enough to force yourself to pull the trigger?).

[Is John McCain a war hero?]

I'd call him a war criminal because he killed innocent people. I'd call all of those people who killed innocents war criminals. They could have refused to serve like Muhammad Ali, but nope, they wanted to kill innocent people instead because they're sociopaths and sick people.

I agree with every single word. Killing innocents can be never justified in my opinion, no matter if you are the commander who gives the order or the shooter who executes it. If the situation is so extreme, the most honorable thing would be simply to refuse obeying such an order and even face the military court. I can't say about every other person, but for me personally it would be easier to go to jail for a long time than pulling the trigger on somebody NOT in self-defense and living with it through the whole life. I mean, after a military court conviction you will serve your time, get out and continue to live with a clear conscience, while if you kill somebody innocent, it will be like serving a life sentence till you die from a psychological point of view.

[Is there an objective morality?]

Eating children alive is neither ok nor not ok. The proposition "eating children alive is morally acceptable" is neither true, nor false. So it's not the case that it is true, and it's not the case that it is false.

Sorry, but this statement seems shocking to me. If we distance ourselves completely from reality and reason on a purely abstract/philosophical point of view, then ANY action might theoretically be defined like that, but in real life, imagine how you would deal with somebody who tries to eat a child alive. I understand it might be interesting to somebody to reflect in abstract ways, but "eating children" is just too much....

[Is there an objective morality?]

It should be the case that eating children alive isn't ok, but just because it should be the case doesn't mean it is the case.

"Doesn't mean it's the case"? By itself the sentence (considering how it's worded) sounds like "it's not true that eating children alive isn't ok". I hope you didn't mean that eating them alive IS ok or that you would be willing to have anything to do with somebody who eats them alive?

[Is science incompatible with religion?]

Well, to everybody: the points you make are good, I don't really have much to say anymore, except that faith vs logic is indeed a tricky thing to make a choice in terms of "which one is better" or "trying to make them compatible". Therefore I think it's better if I just agree to disagree and respect your point of view, even still maintaining my personal beliefs.

[Is science incompatible with religion?]

Are they ruining religion, or are they just portraying its true nature?

You're trying too hard to assign a metaphorical reading to everything in the Bible you don't agree with. That's what we call "cherrypicking." It's a horrible way out of the bad quotes of the New Testament, since the burden of proof is on you to show that there are metaphorical readings of "burning forever in Hell." There aren't any.

I don't know for sure, nobody can KNOW 100%. But the religious people I personally know give a good example in my opinion. If they interpret religion in a certain way and that makes them better, who we are to say religion is bad by default? If a person doesn't harm anybody and does quite the opposite and religion plays a role in it, I see no point in renouncing religion for that person. Everybody has their own way to become a moral person.

[Is science incompatible with religion?]

i don't buy that defense either. if god is omnipotent, why does he have to tailor his doctrine to suit the stone age culture? furthermore, codes of law existed prior to the time of the old testament, so it wouldn't even be accurate to say that the old testament was an improvement in ethics even in the context of setting.

let's not forget that according to the bible, god was so dissatisfied with his creation that he wiped them out in a flood and started anew. he played a part in creating a culture from scratch that was still barbaric.

Those are good questions. However, maybe be Old Testament was initially meant for one culture only (the Jews), the improved codes of law that already existed before that were in other cultures (Egyptians, Hittites etc). Why suit the Stone Age? Maybe because he wanted to keep his intervention to the minimum, didn't want to "magically" radically change everything. I don't know. However, I would like to hear the answers to these questions myself, you make interesting points.

When I watch religious programs (both Islam and Christianity), they often talk about people burning forever in Hell.

And that's sad. Such people ruin religion when it could be an instrument of morality and hope. To be honest, I maintain my religious beliefs partially because I try to take example from the Christians I personally know, who are almost all honest, welcoming, friendly and helpful people.

When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12so that,

“ ‘they may be ever seeing but never perceiving,

and ever hearing but never understanding;

otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!’a ”

Maybe it's because of the "so that" phrase? In the Russian translation I read it's not "so that" they won't be forgiven or that "this is the objective". It's worded differently, but in no way it means that he wants to cheat the people in going to hell. Wait a minute, I will try to translate.

[Is science incompatible with religion?]

i don't understand how the allegory defense even holds up

suppose that i made a death threat to you over the internet. that is a crime; i can't weasel out of that one by claiming that it's allegorical. "oh, when i said that i was going to murder you in a hospital, i really meant that figuratively, not literally." god makes death threats and it seems perfectly okay.

it's hardly any different to me than stating, for example, that jesus was just kidding about god's punishments for unbelievers.

It sounds cynical on my part, but maybe people back then just understood it better this way? Those were cruel pre-medieval times, people were less merciful, even the Old Testament with all its ferocity theoretically seems an improvement compared to the Stone Age for example (at least it brought SOME rules).

[Is science incompatible with religion?]

Jesus explains why he speaks in parables: to confuse people so they will go to hell. 4:11-12

Are you sure this isn't your personal interpretation? Of course, I don't have the WHOLE Bible memorized, but Jesus blatantly admitting he WANTS people to go to hell and doing so ON PURPOSE, this simply isn't the case even though I too would have preferred him to speak more often directly and less in parables.

Jesus sends devils into 2000 pigs, causing them to jump off a cliff and be drowned in the sea. When the people hear about it, they beg Jesus to leave. 5:12-13

To be honest, this one has bothered me forever either. However, the priest in the church I am going to says that in a certain sense "animals are more sacred/innocent than ourselves" (at least how I manage to translate it from Italian). Many Christians I know hope our beloved pets will be with us in the after-life.

For the rest of the quotes, if they are to be interpreted literally, this does indeed create unpleasant reflections for religious people. However, I think that the "cutting the feet off", "burning" forever in hell etc are still allegorical things, it would be too primitive for a supreme being like God to use real-life fire and literally "fry" the sinners. I don't believe Jesus really meant an eye or an arm could literally tempt a person to commit a sin, they are just part of bodies. One person can tempt another, but an arm or an eye? I know it's too convenient to say everytime "it's an allegory", but in this case I am pretty sure, since it would be too primitive for a supreme being like God to literally do such things.

By the way, even though it's kind of off-topic, anybody here has read the short story "The Great Divorce" by Clive Staples Lewis about his imaginary representation of hell and paradise? I know it's not from the Bible, but if hopefully the "fire and tortures" in hell for the sinners are an allegory, then I prefer very much this kind of vision of the Christian after-life. I mean, people in hell suffering morally only because of their own unwillingness to become good-hearted and less cynical and ready to blame others for everything, and perceiving the Paradise as something useless and boring, therefore simply not understanding it, not wanting to be there, being out of place in a place of supreme good.

P.S. The last paragraph of my post isn't really meant as an argument to prove a point, just a mere curiosity.

[Is science incompatible with religion?]

Please, take a situation which doesn't seem to be completely obvious. Ask everybody in the world whether abortion should be legalized.

I can even spin endless variations of your scenario to make it less black-and-white. Ex: Is it morally acceptable to fly a plane into a kindergarten of 20 innocent children to save the President of the United States?

While I agree with your previous posts, I don't undestand whether you say that the abortion situation is obvious meaning that it "should" or "shouldn't" be legalized (I personally consider it murder since not even the most convinced abortion supporters would want to be in the aborted baby's place)? And, how does saving a president make the massacre of children more morally acceptable or less black-and-white?

[Is science incompatible with religion?]

That quote is from the New Testament.

That's new to me, so thanks for the information. However, I definitely disagree with this quote, hopefully it's just Timothy's personal opinion, not God's. But I must agree that this quote certainly doesn't contribute to religion from a moral point of view.

[Is science incompatible with religion?]

We have to ask, are they good ones? The Bible has stuff like this:

I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

If anything, religion seems to give us the wrong answer about what is moral in many regards like women's rights.

The Old Testament is full of cruelty and injustices; theoretically the New Testament was needed just for that, to set things right; if science and religion contradict each other, then there is also no less contradiction between the 2 Testaments. Another example: they talk about animal sacrifices, burning their flesh, and this allegedly is "a smell that Our Lord likes" or something like that. Surely not something compatible with the concept of a merciful incarnation of Supreme Good that God incarnates. I think no moral religious person would consider the Old Testament as even a part of their moral guidelines in life.

[Is science incompatible with religion?]

I think the quote I posted on top of this page is pretty outrageous but that just might be my opinion.

Do you mean this?

Unless science can find a way to prove without a shred of doubt that the universe was created by something that definitely was not God, I think it's not scientifically possible to disprove the existance of God

But what's wrong with stating it's not scientifically possible to disprove the existence of God? Posters above said it's simply "not needed", so why should people worry at all whether it's possible to prove or not?

An eternity in Heaven would be pretty boring too though. If I had to spend an eternity in Heaven I'd probably just try to kill myself, but it wouldn't work out lol. Maybe it's for the best in the end.

Well, it depends on how Heaven is actually presented. I don't think it's that simple as the medieval Christian hell where people are fried by devils or the Muslim Paradise where people are womanizing with multiple virgins. Those are primitive views, in this I agree with the atheists.

[Is science incompatible with religion?]

I personally want to know how a religious person can stay religious after seeing these arguments. A rational religious agent should look at these arguments and say, "why am I even religious?"

But of course, religious belief is based on faith, but it seems like the people here also care equally about reason, and religion is not compatible with reason, as we've seen.

It's a matter of faith of course, and because people want to hope for the better. Pure emotionless rationality would make the world too dry in my opinion, and basing life on the belief there is no after-life, no immortal soul, no "supreme good", and that there is only "emptiness and void" after death would make my personal perception of life "boring" (in the better of cases) or "hopelessly desperate" (in the worst of cases). I wasn't even religious until my teens. Don't know about other religious people, and call me "weak" or "delusional" if you want, but you said you wanted to know the religious people's position, and I give you mine.

I think it's better if I am finished with the discussion, the only thing I would ask beforehand to everybody who want to reply to this post is please not to be condescending or rude, after all I have been respectful towards your beliefs.

[Is science incompatible with religion?]

Making outrageous, baseless claims and expecting the other side to "disprove" it is essentially a step back into the middle ages.

I don't think anyone had said anything "outrageous" in this topic except for a few cases when it came to personal attacks (not on your part). As for "disproving", with this word I mean "presenting counter-arguments". If a thing n.1 is proven and its existence excludes the possibility of the existence of thing n.2, you can say that "thing n.2" is "disproven". At least that's what I meant, sorry if that's not correct from a linguistical point of view.

And just to be clear: I don't absolutely mind people having points of view completely opposite to mine, I respect the point of view of any atheist who calmly present their arguments.

[Is science incompatible with religion?]

Forgot about one quote in the previous post:

The science of the future will never be able to prove the existence of invisible pink unicorns, because they obviously don't exist. End of story.

I don't believe in the existence of pink unicorns, but isn't the formulation "it doesn't exist because it doesn't exist" by itself a bit lacking of logic? If I said "God exists because he DOES exist and that's all", would you have taken me seriously?

Curiosity: are you a scientist yourself? How close you are to the science research? That's not to mock you or be ironical, I am genuinely curious.

[Is science incompatible with religion?]

However, obviously there are going to be more exciting discoveries in the future that we couldn't imagine of today, that actually fit in with our scientific theories unlike pink unicorns.

Yes, but do you agree at least that there may be some discoveries that maybe wouldn't seem "fit" or "logical" to you at all if announced "today"? I mean, if we talked about television and bombs in the middle ages, wouldn't we be considered nuts and "illogical" even by people who didn't blindly follow religion?

[Is science incompatible with religion?]

Occam's razor is used for this problem: even if we can't disprove the existence of God, pink unicorns etc. we can still reject their existence simply because they're unneeded in our theories.

That's a weird position. On one hand, you admit you can't disprove the existence of something, on the other you say we should reject its existence. What if science in the future will be able to prove the existence of such things? Won't your today's argument seem outdated then? If something can't be proven or disproven, ignore it as irrelevant to the CURRENT state of science, but acting like you "know" it doesn't exist is a strange approach unless you 100% REALLY KNOW it doesn't.

Tell me anyway please, do you believe science does evolve and there possibly will be more discoveries in the future than we can't think of today? Just to understand you position better.

[Is science incompatible with religion?]

One last thing:

no christian wants to be told that he doesn't know very much about christianity.

I don't really match that statement; I wouldn't be offended by this at all and freely admit that unfortunately I don't know about it as much yet to be qualified an "expert"; I am not a priest or a historian.

[Is science incompatible with religion?]

okay look

there are three major reasons why some people believe that science and religion are compatible

- they don't understand science

- they aren't as adherent to their religion as they think they are (how many self-identifying christians actually know even the majority of their holy text)

- they experience cognitive dissonance and are perfectly fine with having contradictory beliefs

there is no way to express these reasons more "nicely;" they are all pejorative.

I guess you could put me into the bolded part category if we take everything the Bible says "literally". But who says it's the right approach? I don't know which part should be taken as an allegory and which shouldn't, but can you prove that my rather too free-thinking taking on Christianity is the wrong one? We are not in the middle ages when the inquisition could fry a person for having a "weird" personal belief or interpretation about religion.