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.
Wrong. You are doing the usual thing of starting withe conclusion (Faith based beliefs are true - on faith) and finding (or fiddling) the evidence to support it. So what is the fiddle here? Taking palpable superstition, human delusions and myth -making, and assuming they are true, so what is actually evolving our knowledge and reasoning beyond this becomes a sort of regression.
This is backwards. Of all the animal kingdom, only humans have religion. Only humans are able to think about high concept. Animals? Maybe you can teach them that pooping outside the litter box is wrong. The closest thing animals have to religion is Taoism. They basically move with their rhythm.
So you want to tell me you evolved beyond religion, I'll tell you that you don't understand evolution. Nor do you understand religion. The goal of religion is not to oppress. Some priests do this. But priests are human beings, with needs and flaws. The goal of religion itself is to "reconnect" (what the word religion literally means) to raise ones consciousness. "Evolving" a human who is able to see BOTH the physical and the spiritual, to one who is only able to see the physical... nah that's stupid. You are devolving.
You could be right. We are indeed devolving! But then again, Christians don't seem to murder and destroy other civilizations as much as they used to (if at all?) Although, there seems to be a strong anti-gay sentiment in some Christian societies.
Correct, but that is not because of Christian advance, but Humanuist social advance which Christianity reluctantly had to keep pace with, and that is still the situation.
Wrong. You are doing the usual thing of starting withe conclusion (Faith based beliefs are true - on faith) and finding (or fiddling) the evidence to support it. So what is the fiddle here? Taking palpable superstition, human delusions and myth -making, and assuming they are true, so what is actually evolving our knowledge and reasoning beyond this becomes a sort of regression.
That sounds like a spot-on definition of their thinking, in a nutshell.
Funny, from a Quaker standpoint, it was the pervasive perception* of God's love for everyone in any situation that fostered the humanist advance.
^Which showed up in many ways throughout the sordid history of institutional Christianity, most notably in Francis of Assisi.
Not being a Quaker, I can't comment on that. But let's suppose that's true. Then Humanism grabbed the ideas with both hands. Now the contest seems to be between what appears to be generally humanist ideas and a pull back resistance, which seems to be based on tradition, religion and division. If the Quakers are on the humanist side and indeed contributing humanist ideas, I welcome them.
I can only comment on the Christian thought I have some experience of, and while they talk a lot about love, it comes across as either self -regard or inolerance of anyone not toeing the line, and after fighting against humanist initiatives, once accepted, they wave Godlove about as a way of claiming the credit for religion. Not saying at all that's what you are doing.
Some aspects of the humanist thought or worldview is science and reason. Applying those seems to have given us our best (in fact only) basis for reliable facts. Religion, pseudo -science and supernatural speculations seem to have produced nothing of value or fact, and many various whacky ideas - much as theistic thinking comes up with various religions.
Many religions, but only One science. So it would seem to be that the human mental evolution is the scientific and rational way, and not digging back into the old heap of religious and superstitious beliefs. That is going back, not forwards. It is not 'spiritual; evolution' but a turning back to a dark age of superstition and ignorance.
my religion is more evolved than your religion. lmao, yeah, atheism don't have religious atheists.
trans uses science when it conveniently fits his needs. and shuns science that doesn't fit his needs. I would call that less evolved religious thinking.
hmm, what other group does that? uses science when it fits and shuns it when it doesn't.
Wrong. You are doing the usual thing of starting withe conclusion (Faith based beliefs are true - on faith) and finding (or fiddling) the evidence to support it. So what is the fiddle here? Taking palpable superstition, human delusions and myth -making, and assuming they are true, so what is actually evolving our knowledge and reasoning beyond this becomes a sort of regression.
yup, like starting of with a blind faith "religion is so dangerous we are justified in denying, hiding, and changing science to meet our needs" faith.
all in all, literal religious thinking like that is limited.
It's my understanding that they are. There's even a sub-sect of atheist quakers.
Not a subsect in any sense of the word. The person who runs that site is one of the most intelligent and thoughtful people you may run across, and he has found a home in a Quaker Meeting that allows him to be what he IS within that community and thankful for his contributions.
You should read some of the input from Pagan Quakers who have some outstanding insights too.
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.
