|
Actually the last door-knocker was a candidate for office. The man himself. I suppose he counts as a proselytizer in a way. But I let him go with a cheery, smiling "go to hell".
Briefly veering off-topic...I myself would have been impressed that the guy was actually doing some of his own legwork.
I think I would have at least accepted a leaflet with his campaign website address, if not actually taken the opportunity to ask him some questions - best to be right to the point too: What's your opinion on gay marriage? Church/state separation? Corporate regulation reform?No need to tell him to go to an imaginary barbecue pit when you have the chance to possibly get an honest answer out of a politician :)
|
|
I think the next time door to door evangelists come around (Last ones* were Mormons, who I instantly dubbed the Door-mons because I have the mentality of a dim six year old who reads too many comics :) ) I think I shall tell them that I'm gay and offer them the use of my closet, as I no longer require its services.
Plus side: I live in an apartment building with no public access, so no door-to-door solicitation for me (Mormon or otherwise).
Down side: My wife's entire family is Mormon - and since they're Mormon, there's a lot of 'em.
Briefly veering off-topic...I myself would have been impressed that the guy was actually doing some of his own legwork.
I asked him his party before I told him to go to hell, and I was cheery about it. Between knowing how far right this area runs (Typical "debate": four idiots in suits each falling over the others to proclaim how fanatically anti-abortion he is.) and knowing that he was running from the right to take it farther right, I considered any issues-based questions superfluous.
No need to tell him to go to an imaginary barbecue pit when you have the chance to possibly get an honest answer out of a politician :)
I did get the one. I wouldn't necessarily have voted for any Democrat that offered himself either, but competition for my vote is pretty much between them on the far right and the Greens and Socialists.
Down side: My wife's entire family is Mormon - and since they're Mormon, there's a lot of 'em.
My mother had ten siblings. Eleven live births. If miscarriages and stillbirths were counted, my grandparents would have scored in the mid-to-high teens. They weren't Mormons or Catholics, though. Just flagrantly irresponsible, truly terrible parents who, through their lack of hobbies and inability to comprehend the mysteries of the condom doomed their brood to childhoods of serious poverty. And abuse. Oh, and their genes? That pool needed way more chlorine than it got. Physically and mentally. I have personal experience in dealing with violent psychopaths.
Really sucks all the abstraction out of discussions of human fertility, though.
|
Stuff...
Just so that we are clear on something, and since I know you would not, nor should you have to, read through this entire thread for a small point I made awhile back. My definition of faith is not exactly the same as others.
Faith: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
And while it may seem to be semantic in the subtle difference I assure you it is not. I do not believe, for lack of a better term, in "Blind faith" we are given our minds for a reason, we should use them. I however have met, some atheists who are, and I am in no way accusing anyone on this thread as such, no not even you Samnell, of blindly following sometimes faulty Logic and lack of knowledge about religion in general. I know a few non believers who well for lack of a better term are uneducated both religiously and scientifically. I get upset with the argument that all atheists are the smart ones and just dumb people are believers and if they thought about it a bit they would no believe either. I have met and know of some very smart people who are believers and who do not need to as some have said "compartmentalize" their beliefs.
Sorry if this is a bit off. I try most of the times to post as organic as I can with my thoughts, as scary as that may seem, but I am up late for me and it is worse then normal.
|
|
My definition of faith is not exactly the same as others.
Faith: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
That's not a bad definition. It's actually not too different from what I might say. I still think there is a fundamental difference though when we start talking about faith in religious terms. Using your definition of faith, I think my point still applies - nontheists require more evidence than theists do before they are willing to say they have faith in something.
I know a few non believers who well for lack of a better term are uneducated both religiously and scientifically. I get upset with the argument that all atheists are the smart ones and just dumb people are believers and if they thought about it a bit they would no believe either.
Being an atheist doesn't mean you're smarter at all. Atheism is the default position. Everyone is born an atheist. Theism is a learned behavior. I also get upset over people who insist that atheists are always intellectually superior - the evidence doesn't conclusively support it.
However, I do believe that with varying amounts of effort, most theists could become atheists again. It takes good critical thinking skills (which are sorely lacking in America IMO) and the ability to turn those skills on every aspect of dearly held personal beliefs - something that many theists are unable and/or unwilling to do.I have met and know of some very smart people who are believers and who do not need to as some have said "compartmentalize" their beliefs.
The compartmentalization I was referring to was how people can be smart, rational, critical thinkers, but they don't apply the same standards to their religious beliefs that they do to the rest of their beliefs.
Thy will be done - Not mine but the lords, as in do not be selfish when praying, Say thank you not please
What exactly should we thank god for?
Lead me away from evil
Would you consider this as giving up free will? What is the point if you do not walk away from evil yourself?
I get upset with the argument that all atheists are the smart ones and just dumb people are believers and if they thought about it a bit they would no believe either.
Understandable and I agree that is not the case. However, you essentially said the same things about atheist a few pages back. So, obviously, seeing those who do not believe in the same thing we do as 'dumb' is an easy fallacy to fall into.
This post about atheistic vs. religious definitions and uses of evidence seems fairly apropos to a lot of the recent discussion. Jerry Coyne asks atheists, "What evidence would convince you that a god exists?" -- the corresponding question for theists is "What evidence would convince you that God doesn't exist?" I've posted my reply there:
What would convince me? All I’d want, or even expect, is a semblance of internal consistency. If the Almighty exists and talks to Preacher McGawd, then he should be telling the same stuff to Imam IbnAllah, and also to Yogi Sri Brahman — and arguably to me as well. Therefore, the independently-written holy texts from various parts of the world should agree on salient details. My reading of said scripture should lead me to the same essential conclusions as anyone else’s, without us ending up arguing over which parts are metaphorical, etc. — and over which “apocrypha” or “heretical” writings get thrown out altogether.
Check it out, and go ahead and post your thoughts!
What would convince me? All I’d want, or even expect, is a semblance of internal consistency. If the Almighty exists and talks to Preacher McGawd, then he should be telling the same stuff to Imam IbnAllah, and also to Yogi Sri Brahman — and arguably to me as well. Therefore, the independently-written holy texts from various parts of the world should agree on salient details. My reading of said scripture should lead me to the same essential conclusions as anyone else’s, without us ending up arguing over which parts are metaphorical, etc. — and over which “apocrypha” or “heretical” writings get thrown out altogether.
I like consistency. That's of course mandatory and would be helpful, but it doesn't distinguish between a deity and some kind of hive mind, telepathy among humans, or whatever. Still, it's more than religion has ever produced in all human history.
I'd like to see a faith healer heal a beheading. Literally lays on hands on the stump and a new head grows right there. Of course then we'd have to make sure it was some kind of external force he was using (and not some kind of scientific trickery with nanites or whatever) and not something like his own personal superpower. Of course we'd have to be able to examine every step of the process with every tool at our disposal. There'd be quite a bit of work to go from there to something more specific like "magic works because Jesus says so". Lots of variables to isolate. I'd want to deploy a version of my resurrection-scrutinizing protocols, naturally.
I've previously suggested that people biologically identical to you and I living out ordinary lives, untroubled by the vacuum and other hazards of outer space and without technological assistance would be a pretty good miracle. Imagine generations of humans identical to us who survive with no possible biological or technological means to do so in an environment utterly inimical to human life. Sounds pretty miraculous. We'd have something that literally cannot possibly have happened through any mundane means.
Without something like that, there's no reason to treat any supernatural claims as anything but myths.
@ Samnell -- one of the commenters pointed out, and Jerry quickly agreed, the question is basically what minimum standard of evidence would allow God to be posited as a tentative hypothesis, subject to further testing of course. The question was not "outline a rigorous set of tests that would prove beyond any doubt once and for all!" -- the whole point is to avoid a double standard.
Has he not already been put forth as a tentative hypothesis? Or do you mean a scientific hypothesis?
I just think its funny that Start Trek tech and Xmen powers are more viable answers...... Are we waiting for little green men next.
Are you suggesting that god is less fantastical than transporters and mutants? The existence of an all powerful, all knowing entity would dictate that anything less powerful is possible. The entity could simply think it into existence.
Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26
@ Samnell -- one of the commenters pointed out, and Jerry quickly agreed, the question is basically what minimum standard of evidence would allow God to be posited as a tentative hypothesis, subject to further testing of course.
Yeah but I decided to be an overachiever, since I'd already given the subject a lot of thought.
I just think its funny that Start Trek tech and Xmen powers are more viable answers...... Are we waiting for little green men next.
My test for Star Trek tech and X-Men powers is just as rigorous, excepting that we already know mutations (if nothing like those in the comics) and technology (if nothing to the degree present in Star Trek) exist.
Those are almost infinitely less grandiose claims, if still absurd to the point of being insulting, than this. The amount of crazy in the first point alone makes the X-Men and the Enterprise look about as simple as a sack full of rocks. But the same tools would be applied to each.
|
|
I just think its funny that Start Trek tech and Xmen powers are more viable answers...... Are we waiting for little green men next.My test for Star Trek tech and X-Men powers is just as rigorous, excepting that we already know mutations (if nothing like those in the comics) and technology (if nothing to the degree present in Star Trek) exist.
Those are almost infinitely less grandiose claims, if still absurd to the point of being insulting, than this. The amount of crazy in the first point alone makes the X-Men and the Enterprise look about as simple as a sack full of rocks. But the same tools would be applied to each.
Yup. I remember seeing the concept summarized thusly:
"Having seen but a single horse, you can then rationally posit the existence of 100 more such horses. You cannot, however, rationally posit the existence of even a single unicorn."
Welcome to the fray. I hope you have some asbestos.
There must be something more that is not loading here at work.
"Just listen to Carl."
Carl who? Sagan, I take from the comments. But…then…what did Carl say that I should be listening to?
There must be something more that is not loading here at work.
"Just listen to Carl."
Carl who? Sagan, I take from the comments. But…then…what did Carl say that I should be listening to?
Yes, Sagan. Is this link better?
|
|
Marilynne Robinson on the Daily Show from last night.
Good interview, IMO. On her book "Absence of Mind".
Marilynne Robinson on the Daily Show from last night.
Good interview, IMO. On her book "Absence of Mind".
I just watched it. Pathetic and blatantly false to the point that one must suspect that Robinson is deliberately defrauding her audience and Stewart is simply too ignorant to catch it. No, Jon, no Marilynne, anti-matter is unlike God in every way. It's been produced in reproducible circumstances. It's been weighed, measured, and so forth. Crimson, Marcus, and every religious person who ever lived put together hasn't done that for any god.
Robinson could simply be ignorant herself, and Wikipedia tells me that her education is hardly in science, but if that's the case then she's got as much business writing on science as she does performing brain surgery. She clearly didn't go to the trouble to attempt to inform herself. In that case, she must be condemned for flagrant intellectual irresponsibility.
Yes, Sagan. Is this link better?
Gah! Blocked. I will check it out when I get home.
The gaffe was on Stewart's part... He means dark matter, not anti-matter.
Robinson didn't correct him either and isn't she the one who wrote a book about this kind of thing? She should know better. Nor is his account of dark matter actually that accurate. While we are not, at least currently, able to detect it directly we can detect it indirectly. Which, while not as good as being able to walk up and take a bite out of it, is still infinitely more than we've ever had for any deities.
Did he go online and say he meant dark matter? Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Stewart's about 95% of the time. I think he's one of the very best newsmen in the American mass media, in fact. (That he does so without even trying to report news says a lot about the other guys, of course.) But I'm not willing to just write it off as a accident without some comment from him to that effect. Stewart let William Dembski of all people snow him a few years ago. I'm far from confident of his command of science.
But even if we leave that aside, there's still PZ's unanswered challenge:
Name one insight religion has ever given us that could not have been made by secular philosophers, that was also useful and true.
Stewart, apparently because he agrees with her, let Robinson insist that such insights exist. But did not ask her to present any. Maybe I mistook her intent, but isn't that the entire point of her book? Yet she didn't think to offer one and he didn't think to ask. I know he almost always reads the books before the interview, so this is just bizarre.
|
|
The gaffe was on Stewart's part... He means dark matter, not anti-matter.Robinson didn't correct him either and isn't she the one who wrote a book about this kind of thing? She should know better. Nor is his account of dark matter actually that accurate. While we are not, at least currently, able to detect it directly we can detect it indirectly. Which, while not as good as being able to walk up and take a bite out of it, is still infinitely more than we've ever had for any deities.
I understand this, but at this point is not irrefutable. I'm not going to deny the existence of dark matter at this point, nor am I going to attempt to prove it. I'm offically dark matter agnostic.
Did he go online and say he meant dark matter? Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of Stewart's about 95% of the time. I think he's one of the very best newsmen in the American mass media, in fact. (That he does so without even trying to report news says a lot about the other guys, of course.) But I'm not willing to just write it off as a accident without some comment from him to that effect. Stewart let William Dembski of all people snow him a few years ago. I'm far from confident of his command of science.
It was the context that makes me think that. Saying that it makes up the majority of the universe when most lay people to science know the assumption that anti-matter makes up only a tiny part of nature as it currently exists. However, dark matter is supposed to make up quite a bit more. Hence he either said the wrong thing or is misinformed. Since this is John Stewart, I'm leaning more toward the former.
But even if we leave that aside, there's still PZ's unanswered challenge:
Name one insight religion has ever given us that could not have been made by secular philosophers, that was also useful and true.
It's a nice broad challenge, but I think a derogatory one. It belittles any and all achievements made by religious people (including geometry, chemistry, astronomy, and a whole host of other things). Does it matter that religion made these? You know my stance on religion, I'm a fairly firm atheist. Honestly, religion got people thinking about the world in general, and secular philosophers didn't achieve them first.
Stewart, apparently because he agrees with her, let Robinson insist that such insights exist. But did not ask her to present any. Maybe I mistook her intent, but isn't that the entire point of her book? Yet she didn't think to offer one and he didn't think to ask. I know he almost always reads the books before the interview, so this is just bizarre.
The book, afaict and note I haven't read it yet, seems to be about conscious perception of religion and science and the problem of people to think properly in terms of religion or science. It's on my list of ones I plan to pick up eventually.
Honestly, I think Stewart wasn't sure what to think of the subject... or even if he understood what she was arguing. I'm not sure I do either at this point, hence she's on my too read list. If she's full of it, then the book will end up in resale. She'll likely end up at resale even if I agree, honestly. <shrug>
It's a nice broad challenge, but I think a derogatory one. It belittles any and all achievements made by religious people (including geometry, chemistry, astronomy, and a whole host of other things). Does it matter that religion made these? You know my stance on religion, I'm a fairly firm atheist. Honestly, religion got people thinking about the world in general, and secular philosophers didn't achieve them first.
A couple of points:
1. The statement "these things were discovered by people who were also religious" is in NO WAY equivalent to saying "religion made these things." Francis Collins led the team that completed the Human Genome Project. Collins is also an exceptionally devout Christian. But it wasn't his church that provided the facilities and funding, and it wasn't his knowledge of Scripture that informed his science. Rather, we have an example of the institution of scientific research enabling a scientist to do his job. The fact that that scientist is religious has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of it. Personally, I like gummy bears, but it would be a total falsehood to say that Gummibearism is responsible for all of my work, and everything I accomplish. Nor did D&D contribute in any way to my thesis, although I played it in grad school.
2. Claims that "secular philosphers didn't achieve them first" ignore people like Democritus in ancient Greece, and a lot of other people who laid a lot of groundwork, and who continue making developments today. It is not true that "secular people don't advance science, and didn't contribute early on." In fact, their contributions are equal to, or slightly greater than, their proportion in the general populace.
|
|
It's a nice broad challenge, but I think a derogatory one. It belittles any and all achievements made by religious people (including geometry, chemistry, astronomy, and a whole host of other things). Does it matter that religion made these? You know my stance on religion, I'm a fairly firm atheist. Honestly, religion got people thinking about the world in general, and secular philosophers didn't achieve them first.A couple of points:
1. The statement "these things were discovered by people who were also religious" is in NO WAY equivalent to saying "religion made these things." Francis Collins led the team that completed the Human Genome Project. Collins is also an exceptionally devout Christian. But it wasn't his church that provided the facilities and funding, and it wasn't his knowledge of Scripture that informed his science. Rather, we have an example of the institution of scientific research enabling a scientist to do his job. The fact that that scientist is religious has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of it. Personally, I like gummy bears, but it would be a total falsehood to say that Gummibearism is responsible for all of my work, and everything I accomplish.
Then we can include no one. Religion is made of individuals who share common beliefs. Do we want to deny that Newton was a Christian and very devout? Rewriting history; we should remember why people reason and think and where they come from.
2. Claims that "secular philosphers didn't achieve them first" ignore people like Democritus in ancient Greece, and a lot of other people who laid a lot of groundwork, and who continue making developments today. It is not true that "secular people don't advance science, and didn't contribute early on."
That is not to say that all things are done by religion first, please don't take me wrong. I only meant of the examples that I've given above.
Of the examples that I gave, many of the contributions are coming from people of faith. There is no denying the religiousness of Pythagoras, the ancient egyptian priests, Ibn Khaldun (forgot to mention sociology above), and many others.
Democritus himself, as the father of modern science, travelled around the world to where so many of the religions of the world had already begun to develop many things. This is not to belittle his work, but a little context is in order. He is said to have studied with Indian Yogis, Egyptian priests, and the Zoroastrian Magi.
Then we can include no one. Religion is made of individuals who share common beliefs. Do we want to deny that Newton was a Christian and very devout? Rewriting history; we should remember why people reason and think and where they come from.
Who would propose that? But I'll add a comment on Newton: The man wrote more on alchemy and theology than he did on physics. How much progress was delayed because his incredible intellect was so addled by nonsense?
The point is that the fact that there are and have been religious scientists is irrelevant. (They're also mostly male and historically most are white and wealthy.) Their religion did not make their science right, and could not. It rises or falls on the merits of the evidence. So where is the religious insight that they needed to produce their science? Robinson says it exists. I want her to put up. Where are these insights that secular people cannot have, which are both correct and important to the scientific endeavor? She did not say religious people do science. She said that science needs religion to improve itself.
I don't see how it's insulting to ask her to produce evidence and examples. In fact, I think it insulting not to do so. If her ideas are any good, they will stand scrutiny. To not ask her to present her evidence is telling her that her opinions are the acme of worthlessness and can be dismissed out of hand. One may as well be calling her the expletive of one's choice and telling her that because she's that expletive, she's wrong.
|
|
Has a point
I'm not gonna argue for or against her position. For the most part, I'm against the nature of the challenge presented. It's just a rhetorical way to needlessly attack any contributions made by those who may've had religious thoughts alongside those that led to their discoveries. It's not so much a challenge as it an "Oh yeah? Well..."
Religion has managed to contribute to the advancement of mankind, the question is meant to demean. Even though I'm an atheist, I find that unfair especially light of history.
Has a pointI'm not gonna argue for or against her position. For the most part, I'm against the nature of the challenge presented. It's just a rhetorical way to needlessly attack any contributions made by those who may've had religious thoughts alongside those that led to their discoveries. It's not so much a challenge as it an "Oh yeah? Well..."
Religion has managed to contribute to the advancement of mankind, the question is meant to demean. Even though I'm an atheist, I find that unfair especially light of history.
Mankind has managed to contribute to the advancement of mankind. Religion is one of those things that mankind has made that has both encouraged and hindered us. The question has always been which it does more of. Not whether it does both.
|
|
Mankind has managed to contribute to the advancement of mankind. Religion is one of those things that mankind has made that has both advanced and hindered us. The question has always been which it does more of. Not whether it does both.Has a pointI'm not gonna argue for or against her position. For the most part, I'm against the nature of the challenge presented. It's just a rhetorical way to needlessly attack any contributions made by those who may've had religious thoughts alongside those that led to their discoveries. It's not so much a challenge as it an "Oh yeah? Well..."
Religion has managed to contribute to the advancement of mankind, the question is meant to demean. Even though I'm an atheist, I find that unfair especially light of history.
Right, I understand that. However, the gains created by the religious men of the past form the frame work for much of later science. This is not to say that it is necessary to the process anymore, and saying that someone else could've come up with them is true. The fact remains that these men managed to contribute and were religious. They've advanced understanding to the point where we can now take benefit from it. The challenge belittles them, though it may be as simple as he doesn't understand the history or is uninformed of who was religious and how they came to their conclusions for science.
Right, I understand that. However, the gains created by the religious men of the past form the frame work for much of later science. This is not to say that it is necessary to the process anymore, and saying that someone else could've come up with them is true. The fact remains that these men managed to contribute and were religious. They've advanced understanding to the point where we can now take benefit from it. The challenge belittles them, though it may be as simple as he doesn't understand the history or is uninformed of who was religious and how they came to their conclusions for science.Mankind has managed to contribute to the advancement of mankind. Religion is one of those things that mankind has made that has both advanced and hindered us. The question has always been which it does more of. Not whether it does both.Has a pointI'm not gonna argue for or against her position. For the most part, I'm against the nature of the challenge presented. It's just a rhetorical way to needlessly attack any contributions made by those who may've had religious thoughts alongside those that led to their discoveries. It's not so much a challenge as it an "Oh yeah? Well..."
Religion has managed to contribute to the advancement of mankind, the question is meant to demean. Even though I'm an atheist, I find that unfair especially light of history.
But its an arbitrary category.
Using "no religion and no modern science" is the same as "no vegetarian and no modern science". Or "no introverted people and no modern science".People fall into these categories but that has no direct contribution to the science.
It might be part of who they are and even motivate them but are you going to use all those possible categories and then start saying:
"Ah this scientist really loved painting in their spare time. So science 100% couldn't have come to where it is today without abstract art!"
Edit: Its the difference between the use of words like "helps", "assists", or "spurs" and words like "needs" or "must have".
|
|
Stuff
The fact is that religion made people start to think about the way the universe works. It was a direct catalyst to thinking, the attempt to understand the mind of the divine has created much of which we're accustomed today. It is part of the thinking process. I know you know how science works.
Take Pythagoras for example. He believed that the universe was perfectly rational. It was quite a shock to his beliefs when it was discovered that the square root of 2 isn't rational. It was his belief that spurred him on into mathematics to prove himself right, only to prove himself wrong.
It is not two arbitrary categories, but an evolution from one state of thinking to another. At one time science and religion were one, today there is a distance between the two because the methodology of science has been refined.
Then we can include no one. Religion is made of individuals who share common beliefs. Do we want to deny that Newton was a Christian and very devout?
No, but no need to delude ourselves into thinking that his religion, rather than his brain, were responsible for his physics.
The fact is that religion made people start to think about the way the universe works.
I think your cause and effect are 180 degrees backwards. People think about how the universe works. Therefore they invented religion to provide explanations as best as they could at the time. If there were no religion, and never had been, people would still have thought about how the universe works. Religion didn't give them that tendency; they already had it.
|
|
The fact is that religion made people start to think about the way the universe works.
With all due respect, you've got it precisely backwards. People started thinking about how the universe worked, and because of their limited abilities, they could not reach good scientific conclusions. They ended up anthropomorphizing various aspects of the universe and created religion.
This is the old "god of the gaps" concept. Religion did not lead us into science; a dearth of science led us into religion, and every scientific advancement has brought us further away from religion and supernaturalism.
I think I understand what you're getting at - the drive to know more about a largely unknowable god has indeed been the inspiration of many great scientists. You must realize though that religion is not a necessary driving force for science.
At its best, religion just substitutes "god" for "things we don't fully understand yet". Science does not need religion.
|
|
Okay, let me put it a different way since the way I put it didn't quite make it through the way that I intended (anyone can say something intending it mean one thing and have it come out their mouth or in this case fingers as something else entirely, John Stewart permitting above). Religion was a catalyst for what we call Modern Science.
Yes, I understand that in a hypothetical world there could've been no religion necessary to come to the point where we are. History, however, proves this not to be the case. It has been integral to the process of jumpstarting all sorts of different fields. You used to look for the "mind of God", now you look at the "cosmos". Our understanding has changed.
The issue has been man's own sense of consciousness, about how we learn. So cause preceeds effect, right? Man needs a reason to want to advance. "I want to be living the Good Life" is an example. You make an assumption about what the Good Life is. You start from that assumption and work from there, adding what is necessary or removing what is not until you have a working model. This is the basics of Philosophy. However, many of the great philosophers were clearly theists. It's not until after explosion of German philosophers that we start seeing a clear break from the assumption of the divine.
Today, a good portion of science is just sheer curiosity. It no longer assumes the divine.
Science does not need religion.
Agreed, but I think what is really important to understand is that it's not specifically religion (it has nothing to do with science anymore)... but locked doctrine. Retardation of new ideas, creative thinking, and ingenuity for the sake of what amounts to an answer with no proof is no way of going about doing things.
This is why modern religion was shed. I think that perhaps some of the ancient religions may've had the capacity to evolve and accept the changes of science. There are few today I would say that off without them taking something seriously wrong or remaining open to new ideas for very long.
Anyway, this was mostly a brain dump. I'm on my way to a wedding. I'll respond to anything people bring up directly on this topic later. Thanks for the discussion guys, it's been interesting.
BBIAB
Studpuffin
|
|
Oh is it quotes we are going for now that we have expounded the lack of knowledge of a crappy tv show host?
What matters is not the idea a man holds, but the depth at which he holds it. ~Ezra Pound
Not believing has a sickness which is believing a little. ~Antonio Porchia, Voces, 1943, translated from Spanish by W.S. Merwin
He does not believe who does not live according to his belief. ~Thomas Fuller
The eloquent man is he who is no beautiful speaker, but who is inwardly and desperately drunk with a certain belief. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
He who does not know how to believe, should not know. ~Antonio Porchia, Voces, 1943, translated from Spanish by W.S. Merwin
Generally the theories we believe we call facts, and the facts we disbelieve we call theories. ~Felix Cohen
Few really believe. The most only believe that they believe or even make believe. ~John Lancaster Spalding
Some things have to be believed to be seen. ~Ralph Hodgson, The Skylark and Other Poems
I believe that there is an explanation for everything, so, yes, I believe in miracles. ~Robert Brault
|
Oh is it quotes we are going for now that we have expounded the lack of knowledge of a crappy tv show host?
What matters is not the idea a man holds, but the depth at which he holds it. ~Ezra Pound
Not believing has a sickness which is believing a little. ~Antonio Porchia, Voces, 1943, translated from Spanish by W.S. Merwin
He does not believe who does not live according to his belief. ~Thomas Fuller
The eloquent man is he who is no beautiful speaker, but who is inwardly and desperately drunk with a certain belief. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson
He who does not know how to believe, should not know. ~Antonio Porchia, Voces, 1943, translated from Spanish by W.S. Merwin
Generally the theories we believe we call facts, and the facts we disbelieve we call theories. ~Felix Cohen
Few really believe. The most only believe that they believe or even make believe. ~John Lancaster Spalding
Some things have to be believed to be seen. ~Ralph Hodgson, The Skylark and Other Poems
I believe that there is an explanation for everything, so, yes, I believe in miracles. ~Robert Brault
You really want to start a quote war :P
Religion doesn't belong in the science classroom, just like facts have no place in a church -unknown|
|
A man is accepted into a church for what he believes and he is turned out for what he knows. - Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain)
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg
Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer. - Anonymous
I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it. - Mark Twain
When a man is freed of religion, he has a better chance to live a normal and wholesome life. - Sigmund Freud
I refuse to believe in a god who is the primary cause of conflict in the world, preaches racism, sexism, homophobia, and ignorance, and then sends me to hell if I’m ‘bad’. - Mike Fuhrman
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. - Frater Ravus
Atheists will celebrate life, while you’re in church celebrating death. - Anonymous
And theres plenty more where that came from. :P
|
|
“Reason and faith cannot be separated without diminishing the capacity of men and women to know themselves, the world and God in an appropriate way.” – Pope John Paul II
“Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth – in a word, to know himself – so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.” – Pope John Paul II
Faith is like radar that sees through the fog. ~Corrie Ten Boom, Tramp for the Lord
Reason is our soul's left hand, Faith her right. ~John Donne
Faith is reason grown courageous. ~Sherwood Eddy
Doubt is a pain too lonely to know that faith is his twin brother. ~Kahlil Gibran
Fear knocked at the door. Faith answered. And lo, no one was there. ~Author Unknown
If there was no faith there would be no living in this world. We couldn't even eat hash with safety. ~Josh Billings, His Complete Works, 1888
Faith, to my mind, is a stiffening process, a sort of mental starch. ~E.M. Forster
Faith is spiritualized imagination. ~Henry Ward Beecher
Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens. ~J.R.R. Tolkien
|
|
Faith is courage; it is creative while despair is always destructive. ~David S. Muzzey
Faith is a passionate intuition. ~William Wordsworth
To me faith means not worrying. ~John Dewey
Faith is putting all your eggs in God's basket, then counting your blessings before they hatch. ~Ramona C. Carroll
Every tomorrow has two handles. We can take hold of it by the handle of anxiety, or by the handle of faith. ~Author Unknown
Faith is the bird that sings when the dawn is still dark. ~Rabindranath Tagore
He who has faith has... an inward reservoir of courage, hope, confidence, calmness, and assuring trust that all will come out well - even though to the world it may appear to come out most badly. ~B.C. Forbes
A faith of convenience is a hollow faith. ~Father Mulcahy, M*A*S*H, "A Holy Mess," 1982
Be like the bird that, passing on her flight awhile on boughs too slight, feels them give way beneath her, and yet sings, knowing that she hath wings. ~Victor Hugo
Faith makes things possible, not easy. ~Author Unknown
Faith is raising the sail of our little boat until it is caught up in the soft winds above and picks up speed, not from anything within itself, but from the vast resources of the universe around us. ~W. Ralph Ward
Faith... must be enforced by reason.... When faith becomes blind it dies. ~Mahatma Gandhi
If you listed all the reasons for your faith, and all the things that make you cry, it would be essentially the same list. ~Robert Brault, www.robertbrault.com
Faith and doubt both are needed - not as antagonists, but working side by side to take us around the unknown curve. ~Lillian Smith
Sunbeams out of the clouds
Faith out of all my doubt.
~Terri Guillemets
As your faith is strengthened you will find that there is no longer the need to have a sense of control, that things will flow as they will, and that you will flow with them, to your great delight and benefit. ~Emmanuel
In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't. ~Blaise Pascal
Faith enables persons to be persons because it lets God be God. ~Carter Lindberg
Weave in faith and God will find the thread. ~Author Unknown
A little faith will bring your soul to heaven, but a lot of faith will bring heaven to your soul. ~Author Unknown
Faith can move mountains, but don't be surprised if God hands you a shovel. ~Author Unknown
Sometimes, as practice for trying to convince myself that God exists, I try to convince my shadow that the sun exists. ~Robert Brault, www.robertbrault.com
A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. ~Friedrich Nietzsche
Faith, indeed, has up to the present not been able to move real mountains.... But it can put mountains where there are none. ~Friedrich Nietzche, Human, All Too Human, 1879
Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to. ~George Seaton
Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase. ~Martin Luther King Jr.
Faith makes the discords of the present the harmonies of the future. ~Robert Collyer
Feed your faith and your fears will starve to death. ~Author Unknown
Life without faith in something is too narrow a space to live. ~George Lancaster Spalding
|
|
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.
We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes -Gene Roddenberry
Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? -Epicurus
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. - Seneca the younger
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours -Stephen Roberts
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime; give a man religion and he will die praying for a fish
The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike -Delos B. Mckown
Man created God in his image : intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent.
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death -Albert Einstein
Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet -Napoleon Bonaparte
You keep believing, I'll keep evolving -Bumper sticker
Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people. -Carlespie Mary Alice McKinney
I'm not quite sure what provoked this, but oh well.
Oh is it quotes we are going for now that we have expounded the lack of knowledge of a crappy tv show host?
What matters is not the idea a man holds, but the depth at which he holds it. ~Ezra Pound
That sounds like just the creed of a man who fell in love with Mussolini's politics early on.
|
|
looks like my post got eaten grrr..... not doing it over just going to repeat Frater Ravus
Faith is not the answer, it just stops you from asking the questions.
"He was alone in his wonderment,
amoung creatures incapable of wonder--for them it was enough to exist and go their way."
— Pope John Paul II
|
|
I'm not quite sure what provoked this, but oh well.
That sounds like just the creed of a man who fell in love with Mussolini's politics early on.Oh is it quotes we are going for now that we have expounded the lack of knowledge of a crappy tv show host?
What matters is not the idea a man holds, but the depth at which he holds it. ~Ezra Pound
Very subtle