Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KnifeMissile
Okay, I'm back. Wow, there's so much to say. This will be a long post to multiple people...
Well, not just extreme ones although they are, for obvious reasons, the worst ones. While it's hard to talk about the concept of religion, in general, my argument fits Christianity, Islam and Mormonism, which are all based on fantastic scripture and constitute more than half of the world's religious people. That's a lot...
|
Well, I would argue that those Christians who are not extreme are not ignorant nor are they hypocritical, but then we know that already, lol.
And as far as fantastic literature goes, you would necessarily have to include Judaism, and would also want to include Hinduism and Buddhism.
Quote:
|
Reasonable people can be religious just as reasonable people may make mistakes. I'm neurotic to a fault but am, otherwise, reasonable. Again, we're riding semantics here but a generally reasonable person may do some unreasonable things.
|
I find your attitude here to be just as dogmatic as a fundie Christian talking about Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc.. And this attitude is the crux of my opposition to your views.
I edited this from "you" to "your views"...I don't oppose you, KM, eh-heh...
Quote:
|
Personally, I actually have no problem with religion, in and of itself. Life is hard and whatever helps you get through the day is more power to you. However, (I wll be using the royal "you" here since obviously none of this applies to you, in particular) when your religious doctorine starts dictating what I may do then you make your religion my problem. In this case, I would prefer that you not be religious, thank you...
|
I agree, I do not want anyone's religious beliefs dictating how I may live my life.
Quote:
Of course, this is the real problem. You might like to say "well, they're just extremists and should learn to respect others' opinion," but that really isn't fair to them. They're "extreme" because they truly believe and part of their doctorine is to enforce their beliefs on others for their own good (religions that have no method of procreation don't live too long. This can be a topic for another thread!).
To not follow this is to not truly believe which is, again, against their doctorine (religions that have no self-defense mechanisms also have short lives). So, they must necessarily enforce their views upon me and that is when you must throw your arms up and say "okay, about your religious beliefs..."
|
This is not an accurate observation. Christianity and Islam, through their various sects, are the only religions with a history of widespread proselytization. Marginal subsects such as Krishna Consciousness, not withstanding. Most religious groups believe people would be better off practicing as they do but, Jews and Buddhists and Hindus, for example, are perfectly content to let the faithful come to them.
Quote:
|
Unfortunately, regardless of how self evident something is, you can deny it if you want. How about this: can you see that the Bible is as fictitious as Rudolf the Red Nose Reindeer. Is it incredulous that others don't see this?
|
Yes, I can see that the Bible is fictitious in many respects. Just as I don't believe there are deities with elephant heads or that Buddha was birthed walking and talking from a lotus flower. But I think if you base all of your "proof" of the non-existence of god, gods, or godlike phenomena on religious mythology then you are deliberately overlooking a much vaster realm of possibility - just as those do who take literally every example of metaphysical grandeur in their religious texts.
Quote:
|
For crying out loud, I qualified my statement about conscience and I was merely pointing out how nonsensical it was.
|
Well for crying out loud then, why are you qualifying it to me? You seemed to be taking my statement out of context.
Quote:
|
Please tell me you understand this because you took another look at the senetence and saw the relationship between adjectives and nouns. Philosophy was not depicted as bullshit, it was bullshit that was depicted as philosophy...
|
I understand this because you came back and qualified your statement. The term "philosophical bullshit" could be interpreted different ways dependent upon the user's own general attitude towards philosophy. I think it is quite understandable that your use of term on this thread was initially interpreted the way it was.
Quote:
|
No, I was referring to the very exchange that I gave as an example in the post to which you are responding. I called it "less contrived" becase it actually took place between roachboy and me...He clearly interpreted this my statement to mean that philosophy is bullshit and, judging from your posts since, you felt the same way. If it is not evident how this is not a statement on philosophy then, please, say something and I will explain but I can't help but feel that it must be self-evident by now...
|
History then? I don't recall that exchange about education being made on this thread. I apologize for jumping the gun.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct
Over the years, I observed the conditions surrounding each of those mythical creatures, and found evidence directly contradicting the claims made about each. Since the advent of religon in nomadic tribes of early humans, religion and the actions of so-called "Gods" were used to explain the unexplainable. Over time, the postulations of these belief systems have been proven unnecessary as formerly unexplainable processes were categorized as observable phenomena with observable, logically consistent causes.
I suppose my "faith" lies in science, which I firmly believe will be able to observe and explain all natural phenomena given a long enough time line for the development of adequate technology and understanding of that which we have already learned.
I believe that based on the trend of scientific discovery, we will eventually discover for certain that our understanding of the universe leaves no need for supernatural explanations of natural phenomena. A Unified Field Theory/Grand Unification Theory will be the eventual scientific categorization of all observable phenomena and will therefore explain the organization of the universe and largely replace the concept of "God" and the necessity of that concept in the human mindset. Unfortunately, I don't expect that such a theory will ever be universally accepted, given the refusal of evolution and basic biological science by so many.
|
Well, I don't disagree with most of this. We will come to understand much more than we do now, but I am skeptical that any measure of science and technology will ever explain the essence of existence. Although, I understand more fully now the quality of not believing in or not needing that explanation. Still, I don't think the pull towards transcendence that exists in the majority of the planet's inhabitants can be so easily dismissed. How does science explain that phenomena?