Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I understand your position, but at what point are the followers also accomplices to the action of their organizations. In my view it is when they financially support their actions in any way. I look at the individual, and even though I don’t respect that part of their life, I can find something in most cases to respect. I could respect the person who gives his time to help the poor, or feeds the hungry, but I would look dimly on the giving blindly to any organizations with histories as bad as organized religion. I try to judge by a person’s character, and in turn expect to be judged by my character. This said I also have religious friends, and sadly even one family member is a catholic. I am able to separate the respect these individuals from the corruption I see in their religions by noting the good things they do when not following the myths. I would call it conditional respect not to include any support of their religion. I am sure they have similar views of my philosophy and world view.
We are definitely on the same wave length. Those followers, again, I would place in the realm of fanatics. Followers aren't blind to what their organizations do and if they continue to be involved in the organization, after knowing what they've done...then they are just as guilty as the organization itself and deserve no respect whatsoever....IMHO. I truly believe that organized religion of any sort is a scourge upon humanity and should be completely eliminated...but I don't see it happening anytime soon as much as I'd like it to.
If you read these links,it shows that currently held scientific ideas may not be totally accurate.Since I,although a Christian,am also a firm believer in science and things like evolution,why post this showing where science didn't get it exactly right?Simple.Because it shows how science puts searching for the truth above defending what it thinks is probably the truth.Science examines new evidence,actually,science seeks out new evidence,even if new evidence says something different than what is generally believed.That's how a real search for the truth works.
This willingness to examine it's beliefs in light of new evidence is what separates it from religion,which is more interested in defending older and more accepted ideas that have become entrenched as dogma.Science looks for truth.It was science that brought up the possibility that these ideas might be wrong,not something opposed to science from outside of it.Religion looks for affirmation of what it wants to believe.Science accepts facts contrary to it's preheld ideas if further investigation shows the older ideas to not be entirely correct.Religion condemns and tries to prevent anything that shows their ideas to be wrong.
This,on the other hand, is what religion gives you in response to scientific inquiries into it's beliefs.
i think a hypothetical alien civilization studying human society would come to the conclusion that science and religion are basically the same thing.
Think about it.. both seek to answer those "big questions" about human existence, both have a clearly defined set of world views and requirements for entry into "the club", both have charismatic, larger than life leaders, both insist their perspective(s) are the correct one and both actively recruit new followers.
i think a hypothetical alien civilization studying human society would come to the conclusion that science and religion are basically the same thing.
Think about it.. both seek to answer those "big questions" about human existence, both have a clearly defined set of world views and requirements for entry into "the club", both have charismatic, larger than life leaders, both insist their perspective(s) are the correct one and both actively recruit new followers.
I've never been around a Christian in my life that didn't already know what was going to happen after death and where they would be going...beginning with my maternal grandmother's people and leading through to my own grandchildren. I could live with some expressions of doubt about it but have never heard any. Also I get tired of the bible thumping and asking for prayers for everything from a head cold to a sick pet.
Cutesy-poo cartoons or diagram don't say anything to me. That one just shows how condescending and snide the writer of it must have been. Although that's fairly typical of online evangelical atheists. (And maybe of online evangelists of any kind)
I'm saying if you take each premise on its own terms your premise does not really allow for any absolute truth, only a method to create an increasingly accurate model of reality, whereas mine would allow for absolute truths. Some to be learned in this life while some mysteries might not be revealed until the next.
That you think all religions are created by a person or persons is your own affair. It's not anything I, or anyone else, must accept or even find interesting.
Evangelical atheist? That's an oxymoron.
Religions are man made, that's obvious just by looking at them. Yes, I'm sure you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between investigation of the universe and religious faith.
A person who claims absolute knowledge, with no test in reality is dangerous. Nothing in reality could convince a true believe they may be wrong.
Because they're shallow and not a real form of argumentation. They are also based in nothing except one person's snide attitude and opinion. I figured that was either implied or stated.
If you want me to actually rebut some moronic flow-chart I guess I could try.
***
Religion is not seen as someone merely getting an idea. This is basically starting with the assumption that what religions say about their beginnings is false and there's no reason others must accept an assumption that you like.
Contradicting evidence is ignored in some denominations, but is not ignored in many others. Islam, Catholicism, Judaism, etc had a strong scholarly element to deal with or reconcile apparent contradictions or paradoxes. If you find explanations or clarifications "ignoring" that's your perspective.
Religions do not necessarily last "forever." Religions whose ideas are clearly wrong sometimes, but admittedly not always, turn maladaptive and die out.
***
I like science and science has benefited my life. However science is not my religion nor is it going to be the totality of how I see existence. No amount of childish diagrams and sarcasm is likely to change that. Nor is it likely to deal with the actual realities of religion.
Last edited by Thomas R.; 07-13-2010 at 02:55 PM..
Because they're shallow and not a real form of argumentation. They are also based in nothing except one person's snide attitude and opinion. I figured that was either implied or stated.
Can you point out in the flow chart how it fits into your description?
I find pictures and diagrams far more useful when discussing something with the ignorant..
Can you point out in the flow chart how it fits into your description?
I find pictures and diagrams far more useful when discussing something with the ignorant..
I guess I talked down to you a bit so this was an understandable payback.
I really doubt I fit any normal idea of ignorant. Maybe I'm ignorant compared to MENSA people with doctorates and if you're one okay. Generally I think I'm, if anything, more knowledgeable than I am intelligent. I'm doing a lecture series on English history right now, am working on my Master's Thesis (which I should've finished by now I admit), graduated magna c'um laude , and was top in my Chinese-language class. I read science popularizations for fun and have read atheist authors since I was a teenager or earlier.
If you're doing silly pictures and diagrams because you feel you need to talk down to me you can stop.
I guess I talked down to you a bit so this was an understandable payback.
I really doubt I fit any normal idea of ignorant. Maybe I'm ignorant compared to MENSA people with doctorates and if you're one okay. Generally I think I'm, if anything, more knowledgeable than I am intelligent. I'm doing a lecture series on English history right now, am working on my Master's Thesis (which I should've finished by now I admit), graduated magna c'um laude , and was top in my Chinese-language class. I read science popularizations for fun and have read atheist authors since I was a teenager or earlier.
If you're doing silly pictures and diagrams because you feel you need to talk down to me you can stop.
And any of makes you think you can claim absolute knowledge.. how? Pointing out where you are wrong is far from "talking down" to you.
The flow chart is a accurate representation of the type of "absolute truth", as you would put it, compared to scientific investigation of the universe.
You are ignorant of the scientific method, get over it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
