quote:Originally posted by Boris: Furthermore. You say that people should just be good without worrying about what God thinks. I challenge you to come up with a universally acceptable explanation of what "Good" is without relying on the Judeo-Christian mores that have been built into Western society for hundreds of years.
Christianity doesn't provide a universally acceptable explanation of "Good".
You aren't going to get very far by asking people to derive an entire moral system. Perhaps you could suggest a moral that you think would not be followed if it weren't for Judaism or Christianity.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Weirdly, the world seems to be getting more, not less, religious.
I don't think it's all that weird. Pushback is inevitable. You can blame a lot of the current extremism in Iran on prematurely forceful reform attempts in the '30s.
I think its hard to draw a conclusion either way. A quick glance at the governments and politics of the day in the 1960s should demonstrate the inherent impossibility of gathering accurate information on religious affiliation.
Furthermore, the argument seems to be that the Christian god of today is fairly different from the Christian god of yesteryears. It seems to me that a simple poll of religious believers wouldn't measure this aspect (i.e. a poll would find it difficult to measure the differences between, say, relatively religious Latin American Catholics and much more secular Italian and Quebec Catholics).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: You're claiming that the cultures of the world that have not been heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian religion have no concept of what westerners would call "good"? That seems kind of silly.
My selection of Judeo-Christian mores is due to the fact that both Tom and KoM grew up in a Judeo Christian society and that in turn colors their view of what is considered good.
Their assertion is that religion is only a method of control and should be eradicated. Yet they would be *required* to adapt many of the rules and regulations created ages ago through religious leadership in order to have any form of functional society. Unless of course, they believe an Anarchy would be the best possible societal form.
quote: No. I demand that you, an ordinary mortal like myself, show some evidence of your assertions.
I have no need to prove anything to you. The continued existence of my beliefs and way of life have no need of your approval. For you to assume that I require your approval is also arrogant and conceited.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Their assertion is that religion is only a method of control and should be eradicated. Yet they would be *required* to adapt many of the rules and regulations created ages ago through religious leadership in order to have any form of functional society.
That is not my assertion; my assertion is that religion is untrue and should be eradicated. That it is also a method of control is not relevant.
Now, certainly a functioning society requires many regulations. Some of these regulations - the obvious ones - were indeed first imposed by people who then justified them as coming from gods, because the argument from social utility was too hard to make. What of it? A stopped clock is right twice a day; I can believe "Thou shalt not kill", and enforce it effectively, without accepting the baggage of the stone tablets and Mount Sinai. Indeed, many people do. I do not see that this is relevant to the truth of the assertion "God exists"; if you have some such argument to make, you're going to have to do it more explicitly.
quote:I have no need to prove anything to you.
Then I suggest you stop arguing.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boris, from my brief discussions with KoM elsewhere, he has implied that his morality is something of a live and let live. Is this incorrect?
Regardless - I would put forth that this is a morality that one could arrive at without Judeo-Christian morality. It is simply logical.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Regardless - I would put forth that this is a morality that one could arrive at without Judeo-Christian morality. It is simply logical.
And yet countless societies throughout history have not held the same moral beliefs as those that exist in our society. Things that we consider murder are justified for various reasons in other parts of the world *today*. And not all of those reasons are religiously motivated. There is no empirical proof that the western view of "thou shalt not kill" is superior to any other view. But KoM still believes it's wrong to kill someone. Isn't that interesting?
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is no empirical proof that the western view of "thou shalt not kill" is superior to any other view. But KoM still believes it's wrong to kill someone.
No I don't. I believe it is wrong to kill me, and since it's unlikely I'll be able to enforce this view by sheer physical strength, I grant reciprocal not-being-killed privileges to other people, and set up enforcement mechanisms. In any case, this has nothing to do with whether your god exists or not.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: My theory is that post-Enlightenment atheists don't mind the rabble being religious, so long as they can imagine themselves as a kind of aristocracy or priesthood, in control of those rituals they imbue with religious significance, mostly the rituals of science.
What counts as "ritual of science" and why have I never been invited to one?
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: And yet countless societies throughout history have not held the same moral beliefs as those that exist in our society. Things that we consider murder are justified for various reasons in other parts of the world *today*.
Our society allows killing people in several cases which are not considered murder. The directive not to murder is born out of self-preservation, and any society, no matter what it's predominant religious belief, is happy to lift those restrictions when applied to "enemies."
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Boris, from my brief discussions with KoM elsewhere, he has implied that his morality is something of a live and let live. Is this incorrect?
He has stated that if he had the power to do so, he would stick all theists in re-education camps.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Empirically backed observations. People do get less religious as science becomes more powerful.
But we are dealing with some accidents of history which must be taken into account. Specifically, modern science arising on the one hand in concert with anti-Catholicism (the authors of the "conflict thesis" were not really anti-religion but wishing to stress that they were "not that kind of Christian") and that virulent kind of atheism I described, and on the other hand the popularity of more pietist forms of Christian faith tending towards anti-intellectualism. These trends have set the tone for attitudes towards science, but there is nothing inevitable about them.
quote:>>My theory is that post-Enlightenment atheists don't mind the rabble being religious, so long as they can imagine themselves as a kind of aristocracy or priesthood, in control of those rituals they imbue with religious significance, mostly the rituals of science.<<
Then your theory is wrong; I object very much when "the rabble" - your phrase, not mine - are religious, because they elect politicians who enact laws on the basis of that religion.
Well there you see. You only object insofar as the religious have any voice or influence in the public sphere... very generous of you.
quote: As for the "rituals of science", I suggest you read this. I also suggest you meditate on a lightbulb. Those 'rituals' really, truly do work, you know.
I don't refer to the methods, rather the cultic significance imbued to them by those who think science can function as a religion.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't refer to the methods, rather the cultic significance imbued to them by those who think science can function as a religion.
Since the atheists here, as far as I can tell, don't want science to function as a religion, or think it can, just what is the relevance of these hypothetical people?
quote:Well there you see. You only object insofar as the religious have any voice or influence in the public sphere... very generous of you.
No, no, you're quite wrong. I object to false beliefs even if they are kept completely private. In any case I don't understand what point you think you are making here. Or perhaps you think you are scoring points?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Boris: And yet countless societies throughout history have not held the same moral beliefs as those that exist in our society. Things that we consider murder are justified for various reasons in other parts of the world *today*.
I would add that we still permit killings that some people would consider murder (ex: death penalty, joe horn).
quote:Originally posted by Boris: There is no empirical proof that the western view of "thou shalt not kill" is superior to any other view. But KoM still believes it's wrong to kill someone. Isn't that interesting?
No. You don't need to divine revelation to see that a society that permits wanton killing is not exactly one that you'd like to live in.
EDIT: It's not like being an atheist has drained me of empathy.
quote:Originally posted by Threads: EDIT: It's not like being an atheist has drained me of empathy.
Indeed.
In my case, I have found that since becoming an atheist, I have more empathy, a greater desire for social justice, and a more careful respect for the lives and wellbeing of others.
After all, I no longer have this sense of my group being the only right one through divine fiat, so I must consider the ideas and actions of others on their own merit, rather than through some artificial multi-thousand year old lens of religious morality.
I also don't believe that all will magically be made right after we die, so I have to consider the consequences of actions and choices immediately. The meek don't inherit jack, so if we want to take care of them, we have to do it now, not just assume that God will sort them out later on.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't refer to the methods, rather the cultic significance imbued to them by those who think science can function as a religion.
Since the atheists here, as far as I can tell, don't want science to function as a religion, or think it can, just what is the relevance of these hypothetical people?
You, for one, seem to think that science can take the place of religion in society.
quote:Well there you see. You only object insofar as the religious have any voice or influence in the public sphere... very generous of you.
quote:No, no, you're quite wrong. I object to false beliefs even if they are kept completely private. In any case I don't understand what point you think you are making here. Or perhaps you think you are scoring points?
My observation was that atheists don't object to religion as long as they get to play lords of the manor looking down their noses at the peasantry and controlling the discourse. You seem to be more tyrannical than that, however. My mistake.
Regardless, I'm confused as to how you would determine, on the basis of scientific investigation, that my religious beliefs (to take an example) are false. Something supernatural by definition cannot be proven or disproven using a discipline suited only to investigate the natural world. At most you can make tangential inferences. And on that score, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Scientists can, for example, say how something happens, even why in the naturalistic sense, but not in a metaphysical one. On this ground we are even. If you consider that rationalistic atheism is a johnny-come-lately and that its practitioners tend not to be very honest about what they are doing, I actually think the theist holds the higher ground.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: The meek don't inherit jack, so if we want to take care of them, we have to do it now, not just assume that God will sort them out later on.
Or: Eat, drink, make merry, and screw the meek, for tomorrow we die. If you insist one ethic is intrinsically preferable to the other, you're living on borrowed virtue.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: Regardless, I'm confused as to how you would determine, on the basis of scientific investigation, that my religious beliefs (to take an example) are false. Something supernatural by definition cannot be proven or disproven using a discipline suited only to investigate the natural world. At most you can make tangential inferences.
There can be natural evidence for or against supernatural propositions (ex: a god who actively interferes in our world).
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:What counts as "ritual of science" and why have I never been invited to one?
I, um, hadn't wanted to mention this to you, dean, but it's something to do with, um, your...you know.
-------
quote:Something supernatural by definition cannot be proven or disproven using a discipline suited only to investigate the natural world.
If that's true, of what use is God? If God cannot or does not act in ways which can be observed in the natural world, why bother?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would those things have convinced you before you 'knew' that the book was true? If not, then there is no verification, just circular arguing. You must know this; why do you argue things you cannot really believe in?
I would not have stuck around long enough to really notice the particulars had I not first found confirmation that the basic premise of the book was true in the first place. As for these particulars, by themselves they do little more than cause me to raise an eyebrow, taken as a whole they convince me that it is more likely that Joseph Smith translated a legitimate artifact that corroborates the greater truths already found in the common Bible.
At this point in my life my belief is not beyond question, but all I've seen since taking the plunge is more and more reason to continue believing as I do. I've had periods of silence that lead me to question the consistency of God and have often felt that I was not getting an appropriate level of attention from Him. In those times I have tried doing what I wanted, and what I was told God wanted. The latter has always brought me lasting happiness the former has always brought me fleeting pleasure followed by misery.
I understand that in your world empirical evidence is the safest basis for a conviction. I admit that it's not difficult for me to see how religion exploits and is exploited by people with devious purposes. I am not your judge KOM, I cannot say how well you run your life based on the knowledge you truly possess. I think that overall you are a good man, even if you can be abrasive. Beyond your work in physics I do not know how much time you devote to extracurricular learning. Read the Book of Mormon if only to see if there is anything of value to be found therein. You may not accept the doctrine but there is so much more in the book than preaching. There's history, political science, philosophy, the art of war, poetry, etc. Even if you can find merely one idea aptly stated that stands up on its' own merits in the book, and live according to it, that is all you are obligated to do. It would certainly make debating with other Mormons in this forum more effective neh? But only you can decide if you have the time to devote to such a book, I can only suggest you give it a shot. ---
Tom:
quote:Can you give me a hypothetical, here? Are we talking about banning head scarves from public schools, crosses around necks, pro-life protests, the ritual consumption of hallucinogenic drugs, infant sacrifice, or crusades against homosexuality?
How about the first three, but not the latter three?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My observation was that atheists don't object to religion as long as they get to play lords of the manor looking down their noses at the peasantry and controlling the discourse. You seem to be more tyrannical than that, however. My mistake.
Isn't that true of this whole argument (it's about homosexual marriage, in case you forgot)? People who object to things don't actively picket against them until the people they oppose begin to occupy a position of strength. It's human nature.
Homosexuality has always been feared (where applicable) but it is only when it comes out into the open that it stops being a "dirty" little secret and starts being Public Enemy Number 1.
People don't fear the first few immigrants who arrive in a country. They take on tasks nobody else wants to do, they provide a little interest to a monoculture. It's only when the immigrants begin to take over whole areas of cities and states that people begin to picket.
A few atheists are okay. They're ungodly and to be kept away from children, but they're merely hurting themselves. When the group of atheists grows, they are suddenly a major threat, no longer to be tolerated but to be opposed.
I think, however, that in an America already clearly described as being 80-90 or more percent religious, you would have a tough time defending the assertion that atheists have the solid upper ground from which they can look down their noses.
quote:But only you can decide if you have the time to devote to such a book, I can only suggest you give it a shot.
I've often heard people say this kind of thing. They know God exists because they feel that he does. It is an instinct thing.
It think that this befuddles a lot of atheists because they do not behave in this kind of way. They do not have that weird little thing in their brain that intuitively knows that some form of supernatural being exists. They are scientists at heart and if nobody had told them such a thing as God existed, they never would have imbued anything around them with God-like symptoms.
On the other side, the people with this intuition, this little bit of brain that has them 'feel' God (not God as we know it- if these people weren't told about God they would come up with some supernatural explanation of their own) cannot imagine a world without this supernatural presence outside of themselves. This is the fundamental reason I think people believe in God- because they feel a presence. They know.
Of course, this is just my speculation. Perhaps many atheists will chime in and go, "yes of course I feel that, but I deny it because of lack of evidence."
There are also those people who are psychics and such. They get around belief in a monolithic God by believing they are feeling other supernatural emanations.
But I think that this is the ultimate reason the majority of humans believe in God- because they feel it. It's hard to deny the sense of presence especially in moments where this seems strongest- large spaces, music, collective movement, solitude etc.
I think the first step to seeing the atheist argument is to recognise all the other things you give meaning to outside of the normal pantheon. A place or thing you love. A superstition you hold. A personal ritual you carry out that has no religious meaning, only a personal one, but it helps you (for example, closing the closet door long after monsters under the bed have disappeared.) "Your" song. They have to be things that until now you wouldn't have considered religious and yet you realise now that they are part of a presence.
If someone chopped down your childhood play tree, you would feel a sense of loss greater than, "that was my childhood tree!" You would "see" a gap in your presence. If you returned to that spot you would "feel" the tree where it used to be even if it was not.
If someone plays "your" song, you don't just remember the memories attached to it, you feel them outside of you the same way you might feel absent or deceased friends.
These things are smaller than the God-intuition and feel different, but I think they are part of the same network. If you constructed your entire world out of these little rituals (without God) I think you would attribute this same feeling of presence to the network of little rituals, rather than to one monolithic being.
I think what you have to do to understand how an atheist manages to "ignore" this sense, is to recognize that these non-religious presences feel similar to the God presence. An atheist recognises the God-intuition as a big version (perhaps the natural culmination) of these smaller, non-religious intuition.
An atheist walking into a church (especially one associated with his or her youth) still feels a similar sense of presence. He or she may even consider it something external or supernatural. But, for many reasons, they do not attribute it to God.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Something supernatural by definition cannot be proven or disproven using a discipline suited only to investigate the natural world.
quote:If that's true, of what use is God? If God cannot or does not act in ways which can be observed in the natural world, why bother?
I didn't say could not be observed. For those who have eyes to see, the signs are everywhere. All natural phenomena are, to me, God's works. It seems to me what you're really asking is what good is God unless you see a miracle, i.e. unless He acts in ways contrary to natural laws. I could discuss that, but again, we're in metaphysical territory.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: You, for one, seem to think that science can take the place of religion in society.
No. I think society and individuals would be better off if they believed only true things. Religion is a false thing, science is a means of learning true things; therefore society is better with more science and less religion. But that does not mean that science takes the place of religion; the two are orthogonal. Ritual and ceremony we will always have with us, and they are not scientific, nor is that a slam on ritual. But we may at some point do without false belief.
Your confusion is caused by your inability to conceive of really rational thought, without the crutch of your beliefs; you think of an atheist as a theist with a hole, and so he must look for something to fill the hole. No. It is the theist who lacks something, which he fills with the first vaguely appealing religion that comes along.
quote:Regardless, I'm confused as to how you would determine, on the basis of scientific investigation, that my religious beliefs (to take an example) are false. Something supernatural by definition cannot be proven or disproven using a discipline suited only to investigate the natural world.
There is no need for disproof. If you assert "There is a dragon in my garage", you would usually be asked to present some sort of evidence. "You can't disprove my dragon" is not generally considered an argument. Beliefs that have no shred of evidence attached need no disproof for a rational human to discard them.
quote:At most you can make tangential inferences. And on that score, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Scientists can, for example, say how something happens, even why in the naturalistic sense, but not in a metaphysical one.
This sentence is meaningless. What does it mean to say "the metaphysical sense of why something happens"? If it is supposed to be the purpose of some intelligent being that caused it to happen, then you are begging the question: It is not clear that such a being exists for a given event. Why assume that there is a 'why'? Stuff just happens, until evidence is shown to the contrary.
And let's note that when a scientist tells you why something happens, the explanation is really convincing and applying the principle really works. When a theist tries to guess why something happens, nobody is convinced unless they were already members of that religion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: My observation was that atheists don't object to religion as long as they get to play lords of the manor looking down their noses at the peasantry and controlling the discourse. You seem to be more tyrannical than that, however. My mistake.
quote:Isn't that true of this whole argument (it's about homosexual marriage, in case you forgot)? People who object to things don't actively picket against them until the people they oppose begin to occupy a position of strength. It's human nature.
Homosexuality has always been feared (where applicable) but it is only when it comes out into the open that it stops being a "dirty" little secret and starts being Public Enemy Number 1.
People don't fear the first few immigrants who arrive in a country. They take on tasks nobody else wants to do, they provide a little interest to a monoculture. It's only when the immigrants begin to take over whole areas of cities and states that people begin to picket.
A few atheists are okay. They're ungodly and to be kept away from children, but they're merely hurting themselves. When the group of atheists grows, they are suddenly a major threat, no longer to be tolerated but to be opposed.
I think, however, that in an America already clearly described as being 80-90 or more percent religious, you would have a tough time defending the assertion that atheists have the solid upper ground from which they can look down their noses.
I don't consider homosexuality Public Enemy #1. The degradation of marriage in general is a bigger problem, of which the recent SSM debates are a symptom, in my view.
But sure, there should be prevailing values that guide our civil lives, and I'm unabashed that I think those should be Judeo-Christian. Nor did I really say that atheists are in a position to be lords of the manor; I said they want to be.
There is a very pernicious anti-Christian streak in academic circles, but that is partly because Christians have let them get away with it and ceded our own credibility in many areas.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Stuff just happens, until evidence is shown to the contrary.
Wow, and I'm the one who supposedly has difficulty with rational thought.
I can see that you're one of those who's bought into a reflexive disdain of religion and the religious that prevents any rational discourse (ironically). There's not much in postmodernism to be glad of, but that it heralds the relativization of hidebound modernists like yourself is one cause for rejoicing. Your kind represents the most stubborn of fundamentalists (more irony, since you spend so much time and energy railing at them). But never fear, your sort of unthinking is valued in academic circles. If you're employed or seek employment there, you should have no trouble never having your presuppositions ruffled.
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:that is partly because Christians have let them get away with it and ceded our own credibility in many areas.
In what area do you think Christians have retained credibility?
More practiced disdain. It's dripping in here. It is the internet, I suppose.
Since I spoke to KoM about irony, let me note another one. All the rationalism, empiricism, scientific method, secularism, in short all of what the droll atheist takes for granted, he has inherited from theists. Granted that there were a few atheists among the Greek philosophers, but the rest is all carried on the intellectual backs of theism, and largely of Christianity. The very sword you hope to slay theism with was forged by Christians. It must really disturb you to ponder this? Or are you one of the honest ones, Tom?
Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wow, and I'm the one who supposedly has difficulty with rational thought.
I can see you do not intend to actually respond to my points, much less think about them. Sad, but not surprising. Such things happen when brains are warped at an early age. I suggest you run along and play with your dolls now, and come back when you're ready to have an adult discussion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And christianity is carried on the back of judaism, mithraism, zoroastrianism, which were carried on the backs of various other pagan religions, which were carried on the back of animism. Who cares? Better things grow up and take the place of older less capable things.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:All the rationalism, empiricism, scientific method, secularism, in short all of what the droll atheist takes for granted, he has inherited from theists.
Would you like to discuss this in more depth?
My assertion is as follows: until the late 18th century, there was no model for the universe that made sense without a supernatural Creator; no natural model had previously been posited that answered the most pressing questions. Ergo, practitioners of the scientific method would safely presume the existence of a Creator while still studying the results of that Creator's actions. By the late 1700s, other explanations had come forward to reduce the scope of that action, thus permitting concepts like Deism; God no longer directly acted, and perhaps was a non-sentient "Nature's God." And just a few decades later, enough gaps had been closed that it became feasible to wonder whether a creative force -- sentient or not -- was actually necessary to explain the observable universe.
quote:The very sword you hope to slay theism with was forged by Christians.
Socrates was a Christian?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:The very sword you hope to slay theism with was forged by Christians.
The mushroom grows in a cellar, fed on horseshit; but I do not put the horseshit on my plate, nor live in darkness. If Newton was smart enough to make strides in science in spite of his theist beliefs, then the more glory to him; that does not mean I must burden myself with the same handicap. By standing on the shoulder of a giant, you see further. But the giant did not grow so large because he stands to his knees in a mucky swamp.
And again: What evidence do you propose in favour of your religion? What prediction do you make that is different, because your god exists, from what a scientist would say? If you pray for a sick child, is the probability of its recovery thereby improved? If you perform a certain ritual, will you have luck in other matters?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The evidence is stuff you are unwilling to call evidence, so you don't need to bother asking that question again and again until you are willing to look beyond your assumptions about what can or cannot be considered evidence.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The evidence you propose is stuff that just as cleanly predicts any number of quite different gods. A Muslim who speaks of the miracle of breathing takes it as evidence for Allah; since it is just as useful for this hypothesis, its actual weight as evidence is zero. If you have any evidence that distinguishes between gods, or between gods and no-gods, then present it now. Otherwise be quiet.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't even know why people are debating the "forged by Christians" bit. It's patently false if you know anything about either philosophy or the roots of science. Clearly, GinaG does not, which makes me wonder what the point is in discussing much of this at all with her.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GinaG: ... The very sword you hope to slay theism with was forged by Christians. It must really disturb you to ponder this? Or are you one of the honest ones, Tom?
"No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat."
(Not that the premise is true, as others have pointed out. But I find the idea that one would be "disturbed" even if it were true a curious one)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I don't even know why people are debating the "forged by Christians" bit. It's patently false if you know anything about either philosophy or the roots of science.
Yeah, that assertion is definitely a red flag.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
A red flag that was waved by Pi-- ... nah, just a red flag, I guess. That other one was kind of little, and really, it was only a red leaf.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: And christianity is carried on the back of judaism, mithraism, zoroastrianism, which were carried on the backs of various other pagan religions, which were carried on the back of animism.
Sure, I can admit that, at least in the case of Judaism, and some pagan influence. Cheerfully.
quote: Who cares? Better things grow up and take the place of older less capable things.
I know there are some Jews around here who might take issue with that statement. But basically you are stating a religious idea- "fuller revelation." See, we have so much in common. Posts: 117 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gina, the rhetorical flourishes and sly "gotcha" comments really aren't going to help you to win any minds here. Your arguments will be stronger without them.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But basically you are stating a religious idea- "fuller revelation."
Or a Darwinian one.
(Note: the winkie is there because I don't really think there's such a thing as a "Darwinian idea." But YMMV. *grin*)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Gina, the rhetorical flourishes and sly "gotcha" comments really aren't going to help you to win any minds here. Your arguments will be stronger without them.
Yep. Rhetoric without accuracy is just, well, neither useful nor admired.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
