Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I guess you missed the fact that the first 20 years of my life I was submerged in the thick of fundamentalist Christianity. It wasn't just my dad's church at all. First off, my dad has not just been at one church, he has been in many spanning the US. Not only that, but I was active in the faith in that I would go to the various social functions, meetings, conventions that there are to experience. I understand faith just fine. Not only that, but but I've experienced Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and Hinduism substantially as I searched out my own personal truth and understanding. Instead of a weak strawman, I would ask that you actually make an argument or try to poke logistical holes in mine.
|
I hope you can acknowledge that my weak straw man was a response to your weak straw man.
The only reason i mentioned it was because you seem to lack the will to differentiate between different types of faith. You seem to think that all theists think the same exact things in the exact same ways. This is plainly wrong, and the fact that you claim a certain amount of exposure to theism and still seem to implicitly insist through your assertions that there is only one kind of faith doesn't make sense.
Also, the idea that exposure to a lot of fundamentalist churches is a sufficient basis on which to make sweeping claims about all of christianity is as valid as the idea that eating at a lot of different mcdonald's is a sufficient basis on which to make sweeping claims about how food is prepared.
Quote:
|
Faith and reason are in turmoil. Those doctors and scientists and researchers have to ignore that they work within two opposing systems of reality. Again, that must lead to difficulties, whether it be denial, disassociation, or what have you.
|
It must? Why? How can you make claims like that and pretend to hold the scientific method in high esteem? How many studies have you read on this particular subject and what were their flaws? I have a hard time understanding how you can cop this attitude whereby scientific reasoning is superior to every other form of reasoning whilst making all types of assertions that are very obviously not based on any sort of science whatsoever.
How are faith and reason opposing systems? Are algebra and geometry opposing systems? Physics and supply side economics? Please explain the means by which you came to that conclusion. As far as i can tell, being based on different assumptions isn't the same thing as being in direct opposition.