|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
 Posted - 01/14/2002 : 02:32:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The problem we face as skeptics, I think, is that religion and science, using both in the broadest sense, are increasingly attempting to fill the same gaps and this leads to some head-on collisions.
I'm not even sure it's attempting to fill the same gaps. But the more we find out through science the less room there seems to be for religious belief. Regardless of the validity of the concept, science is viewed as a threat to religion.
quote:
Creationism is the obvious case in point, but there are others. "Faith" in mystical forces is the most common reason paranormalists give for rejecting scientific skepticism about those forces. This has made its way into politics as well, where secular society has come into conflict with religion on such issues as abortion and homosexuality. You'ld never know it from watching prime time TV, but secular society is historically an outgrowth of the Enlightenment and of belief in the primacy of science.
True, a common misconception put out by religionists and the media is that religion was the driving force behind ending a lot of immoral behavior in society. Yet, it is often ignored that religion ostracizes those that are different.
quote:
Religion is potentially a more authoritarian force than science. Those of us who reject authority as a test of truth would still have to bow before the authority of a real, live god. It would be the logical thing to do, if that god's existence were proven or if we could somehow be convinced that certain humans speak for him.
Would it? I mean be logical to accept a being stepping down saying it's god. Wasn't it Asimov who said any advanced technology could seem godlike to us. Would it not be easier to accept the premise of 'advanced alien' than supreme god?
The rest I can agree with.
There is no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot, the only home we've known. Sagan |
 |
|
|
hatten_jc
New Member
Sweden
44 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2002 : 07:25:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Science tries to find the answers to fill those gaps, while religion tends to accept gaps will always be with us. "There are things unknown to mankind," or some such, "known only to god."
Yeah, religion does that in some cases. Sort of like Maria Ouspenskaya in the 1930's Universal horror flicks. "Der are tings man vas not meant to know, Dr Frankenstein." While in other cases a gap filling answer is pulled out of thin air, with the sole purpose of supporting the religion (read that as--lies are told).
In either case the end result is the same. Ignorance. quote:
You are correct but even true that religion have destryd and creatid millenium of unecesarey darkness they have also save knowledge by starting schools..
Some religion way to treat knowledge is like taking two stepp forwars and one stepp back in what then know of the world.
Sadly some have taken one stepp forward and two stepp back in sciense.
Tend to think both are valid, too, and not necessarily exclusive. Can see where a person of a scientific bent, could accept, that all things, will never be known, while still setting about to provide answers for as many gaps as possible. Can't you?
Hmmm, no, not really. I do accept as a given that we will never know everything (and I'm glad of it. I make a pretty good living at this gig, and you should see the nice tan I just got on Oahu while trying to expand knowledge.) The problem I have with religious claims of knowledge, or the mandatory lack there of, is that they both forbid the acquisition of actual knowledge.
The Islamic world, while Europe was in its dark ages, was steeped in science. Their mathematics was so wonderful that Europe dropped it's own number system to adopt their strange symbolic language.
Then fundamentalism stopped their advance cold.
Same story with the natural sciences in India, China and Japan. Amazing things were happening in those places, but religion put a stop to it.
There is a legend that the Pythagoreans declared the great ancient Greek Scientist/ Engineer Hero (his given name and also the status I hold him in) a heretic after he invented the two cycle steam engine.
quote:
Heron is a hero a true gigant  but he where also a priest and a inventore among what he build where tempel doors that where open by a primit steam engine and the Aelonbaal
and engine using rope and power enhancing machinay as weel as dancing and singing mecanical birds that where driven by air presure ( warm air made them move and sing as the presure where going true small instrument ).
Heron live 100 before christ.
and where a student of the Alexandria school and that school where burnt by christans as they hade many non bibel books.
They forced him to drink poison, destroyed all of his inventions and stopped the industrial revolution from happening for two thousand years.
quote:
That is a bit simplel Heron death where NOT by christian but becuse other reson and his books where save in the library of Alexandria but where later among other books destroyd by the roman Christians as they where non christian..
Only in Europe was there a partial collapse of the religious system. This freed people to start using their brains again. Not that religion hasn't desperately and repeatedly tried to stop the search for knowledge. (I'm sure someone will turn up here shortly to demand once again that we stop believing in the unproven religion of natural selection)
Frankly I do not view religion as a benevolent, if slightly eccentric, entity. I see it is the single most destructive force in the history of human kind. It has enslaved billions, making their lives poor, short and frightened.
Hence I support Evangelical Skepticism--the sole candle in a "dark daemon haunted world" of religious tyranny.
quote:
religion is destructiv as they get angry when knowledge prove them wrong. And that is way we that dont belive have to be whatchfull towards thos that blindly seek religius dominoin owher others.
We also have to be whatchfull towards us self becuse fobiding religion is as wrong as forbiding sciencse.
Education and knowledge is the way not force. But when the forces of blind faith start to move agresivly then it is correct to answer and deffend the right NOT to belive.
Damn the deities, full speed ahead!
quote:
Never underestimate a human's capacity for active stupidity.
Sorry about my lousy English ? can we talk in Swedish :) |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2002 : 08:06:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
We also have to be whatchfull towards us self becuse fobiding religion is as wrong as forbiding sciencse.
I have to admit that for all the weaknesses of Hatten's English skills, his logic, in my view, is almost flawless. Answering fundamentalism with the same type of intolerance is not the answer. Besides, not all of the contributions of religion can be thought of as evil or destructive.
Prehaps, there is a compromise, though I'll be the first to admit that there is no compromise in Fundamentalism. I think that on this track, Hatten still has the answer;
quote:
Education and knowledge is the way not force. But when the forces of blind faith start to move agresivly then it is correct to answer and deffend the right NOT to belive.
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2002 : 14:22:38 [Permalink]
|
Suppose where we may part company, is that tend to think of religion as benevolent, actually.
Although you will find that most Christians are willing to help their fellow man, who is in physical trouble, with no thought to self, the same does not hold true of Christian institutions.
When the Christian church or affiliates show any form of Humanitarianism there are always strings (and very often these strings are connected to hefty price tags) attached.
Isn't (religion) an acknowledgement of forces beyond our control and manipulation, that we are subjected?
Parts of it are. But mostly the forces that are said to be beyond our control are imaginary.
When it turns out that forces the church has declared to be beyond our control are not the church becomes violent. Examples: the lightening rod, inoculations for infectious decease, birth control, cloning, elevators, etc.
A personifcation of these supernatual powers, and a reverence for, many credit with allowing for the creation of this universe, and the life within it, including our own?
This is what I was talking about earlier when I mentioned "pulling stories out of thin air" with the sole purpose of supporting the institution. And no thought given as to whether that which is claimed is a fact or not.
There are no supernatural powers. There is nothing that can behave contrary to the laws of nature. The "SUPER" natural is a fiction, a literary device that has no counterpart in reality.
In other words--they are lying to you.
A striving to be a 'better' person, than perhaps we really are?
As noble as that sounds, one must take a close look at what actually constitutes a "better person" in the religious sense. Invariably a "better person" is not one who follows the dictates of their own mind and heart. To be a "better person" one must follow the rules and regulations of the church-no mater how ridiculous they might be. In other words the more you submit to their control the "better" you are. WWJD?
A sense of gratitude and obligation, for what we may enjoy?
Gratitude to who?
When you sit down at dinner, for one example, whom do you thank? The cook? The person who went to the store and paid money for the food? How about the grocer, the delivery truck driver, or the farmer?
No, you thank god. God being nothing but the public image of the very human institution of the church. And god/church have done nothing to provide one mouthful to you.
The gratitude you feel towards them and the obligation you think you have to them to them are only signs of the servitude that they hold you in.
Would suggest all these considerations, more, are bundled into what makes up a person's religion. Benign enough so far?
Benign? No, not at all. So far we have enforced ignorance by use of falsehoods (fostering a belief in the supernatural) servitude (unjustly claimed gratitude) and fear (sense of obligation).
I'm not a particularly benign man, but I would never dream of treating you in so shabby a fashion as religion does.
… Behold the Serpent! *L* An organizational ladder is formed, a chain of command, and we have yet another 'power structure,' not of god, but of man.
Take a close look at organized religion and you'll see precious little difference between it and freelance Christians. It was never meant to be anything other than organized. The sole purpose of convincing you that there is a god to which you own something (be it money or only obedience) is to control you. This control is wielded not by any gods. It is purely a human institution.
If you think I'm wrong phone up the Vatican and ask for God's voice mail.
A person with a "personal" religion may not be sending their cash off to some preacher but they have the same mind set as someone who does. With a "personal" religion no one profits. The victim (believer) is still lost in the same fantasy while the con (minister/priest/rabbi) can't fleece them.
Like a rabbit caught in a snare whose stake has come loose. The trapper won't profit from the rabbit because it's hopped off. But the rabbit still has a wire noose around his neck.
What difference, the herd is culled, usually of the best of us, not by god, but by man.
You got it there.
Does this negate the concept of a god? Don't think so. Nor do me expect the church, ((?) house of god), made of man, to be immune from the fashion, or trends, of history, neither.
It does, in the fact that God never shows up. Only people who claim that they speak for him. No one has ever seen god, heard him, smelled him, or touched him. Those who claim that they have we consider to be insane.
There is nothing to even suggest that there are any such things as gods. Just people claiming authority over you in the name of something that they can't prove even exists themselves.
… Weren't there dark periods in history, where "the church" became the default depository of civilization?
Time to dust off the history books.
When the social structure of classical civilization collapsed almost all the "knowledge" of the classical world was lost. But it wasn't destroyed by the barbarian Pagan hordes. The Goths and the Vandals didn't destroy the books and the art (even though we use the word vandal today to mean a person who does just that). That stuff was valuable. A book cost a lot of money in those days.
The Christians destroyed classical learning, and brought on the Dark Ages, for the same reason the Kansas school board wanted to destroy science class. It contradicted their faith.
Aren't there periods in history, that would be completely blank, unknown, if not for the church?
Reading and writing were common abilities in Pre Christian Europe but almost non-existent by the Eighth century. The church had forbade the teaching of them to the common people. Ordinary people were also forbidden to read the bible in those times, only priests. Nobles were allowed sections of the bible but not the entire thing.
In fact the first person to publish the bible in English with moveable type so that it could be distributed to a large audience was put to death for his insolence.
Isn't it to civilization's advantage, the church promotes charity and builds schools?
The church leaders lived in palaces while the ordinary folk lived in huts of daub and wattle (daub, for those interested is a mixture of dried mud and shit) Schools were only for clergy, and much later nobility. The schools only taught knowledge that was approved by church. This enabled the church to restrict knowledge while seeming to advance it.
The charity that the church promoted was getting people with money to give some of it away-not the church giving away it's own money. Poor boxes were (are) set up in churches. The church gives a portion of that money -donated by parishioners- to the poor and takes credit for the charity. United Way runs the same scam.
Its contribution to advance civilization, is as colored as is humanity's, itself, but tend to see it a shade more to the positive. Call me sentimental.
The Renaissance -a term which means the rebirth of civilization- only happened when the church began to lose it's power. Western civilization advanced in spite of religion, not because of it.
Fanatical, literal interpreters, of any doctrine, would deny evolution, advancement, or progress IMO, and therefore, should be considered as an enemy to civilization at large.
Amen.
These were the sort of people who brought us the Dark Ages the first time. We must always be vigilant that they aren't allowed another turn at bat.
… religion should not be considered a threat to science, especially a personal one, so would me argue with the church, neither should the sci |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2002 : 14:28:38 [Permalink]
|
That is a bit simplel Heron death where NOT by christian but becuse other reson and his books where save in the library of Alexandria but where later among other books destroyd by the roman Christians as they where non christian..
That's correct, but I didn't say that Christians had killed Hero.
It was Pythagoreanism that we have to thank for that outrage.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2002 : 22:47:56 [Permalink]
|
You are a hard man, Slater. *L* Still nurse some bruises from other encounters, and am not eager to gain more. When it comes to history, stand armed with only nail clippers, against your broadsword. Suspect you chose events, that only suport your position, as me certainly would, if enjoyed the arsenal at your command. But can't accept in all of history, there is not one instance of the "church" acting to the advancement of civilization, no matter how obscure, or how reluctant the motives, that even you would concede, as your stated position would seem to suggest. No?
"But mostly the forces that are said to be beyond our control are imaginary." Or as yet unknown, (Dark Energy), and even known forces that remain beyound our control, (Weather). (The church resisted lightening rods and elevators!?! *L*) "There are no supernatural powers. There is nothing that can behave contrary to the laws of nature. The "SUPER" natural is a fiction, a literary device that has no counterpart in reality." With little reluctance, agree in principle in so much as there remains forces and/or processes, we don't fully understand as of yet, and may be grouped into the term for ease of reference. Would still reserve the term for God, and accept you view "god" as fiction, too.
"WWJD?" Dunno what this means.
"A striving to be a 'better' person, than perhaps we really are? As noble as that sounds, one must take a close look at what actually constitutes a "better person" in the religious sense. Invariably a "better person" is not one who follows the dictates of their own mind and heart." (Disagree) "To be a "better person" one must follow the rules and regulations of the church-no mater how ridiculous they might be. In other words the more you submit to their control the "better" you are. WWJD?" Well, 'better' is a subjective term, that will morph with the winds of time in which we live. You continue by describing the unfortunate typical institutional exploitation of people's desire. In this case, one, me believes, resides within all of us, before being corrupted by the realities of our times.
"Gratitude to who?" *L* In general, though modest, and aside from 'more, bigger, better,' all me wants are satisfied. You seem to enjoy a bit of the "good life." Aren't you grateful? Of all the times and conditions, you could have been born within, say as a jew in Germany in 1936, here you are, with a fulfilling career, the means to suport a pleasant life style, and still have time to waste at this. And am sure you feel, and fulfill a sense of obligation to contribute to easing the human condition in some way. (Would place a large bet and give odds, where you would take this. *L*)
"In fact the first person to publish the bible in English with moveable type so that it could be distributed to a large audience was put to death for his insolence." Gutenberg was put to death by the church?
"Does this negate the concept of a god? Don't think so. Nor do me expect the church, made of man, to be immune from the fashion, or trends, of history, neither.
It does, in the fact that God never shows up. Only people who claim that they speak for him. No one has ever seen god, heard him, smelled him, or touched him. Those who claim that they have we consider to be insane.
There is nothing to even suggest that there are any such things as gods. Just people claiming authority over you in the name of something that they can't prove even exists themselves."
This is the crux of our difference. God has never departed, in me 'infantile' opinion. Speak for no one but myself, claiming no authority over anyone, and keep your money. Haven't seen, heard, smelled, or found a proof for God's existence. But have experienced God's presence, and all senses were transformed by the experience, or so i beleive. For me it was transitory, but will not deny the experience, which me believes is available to any. ",.. Nothing to even suggest," only if you lay aside history, itself. When was there a period in recorded history, that there wasn't a group of active believers? Does that suggest nothing? We may live long enough to see a TOE actually proven. So what? While we may then understand completely how the universe works, in a physical sense, we are still faced with this miraculous construct, that we find ourselves within. We, clumps of animated, self aware, ordinary matter, are still faced with the "Big Why?" Contraire, while it may well not always or exclusively, reside within the estabished institutional religions, the glass is quite full, for any who would but see.
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
hatten_jc
New Member
Sweden
44 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2002 : 09:54:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
That is a bit simplel Heron death where NOT by christian but becuse other reson and his books where save in the library of Alexandria but where later among other books destroyd by the roman Christians as they where non christian..
That's correct, but I didn't say that Christians had killed Hero.
It was Pythagoreanism that we have to thank for that outrage.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it.
Weel Pytagoras from Samos lived 500 Bc on the Samos some belive he where son of a god Appolon.
Pytagoras creatid a cult around him self and belive evrything where numbers and evquations.
Wheter not the Pythagorena kild heron i dont know about but the cult live long after its funder where death.
Some holy command from the Pythagoras rule is.
1 Never eat beans
2 Never bick up any thing that have falen to the ground.
3 Never touch a with coq/ruster/ (male chicken )
4 Never brake bread
5 never klive ower a fence.
5 never ster the fire with iron.
Hade to look up in a book but diden find any prove about How Heron died but plenty old things about Phytogoras.
Never underestimate a human's capacity for active stupidity.
Sorry about my lousy English ? can we talk in Swedish :) |
|
|
|
chee
New Member
USA
35 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2002 : 10:55:42 [Permalink]
|
After wading through all this discussion , can't help but wonder do those who denounce religion have faith? And how would you describe the difference?
A colder place I've never known, than with someone but yet alone. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2002 : 11:51:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
After wading through all this discussion , can't help but wonder do those who denounce religion have faith? And how would you describe the difference?
I'll give this a stab, though I'm not nearly so good with words as Slater or Garrette, for example...
"Faith" is one of those many words that have many different meanings. Slater put it well when he equated it with credulity. This is what faith is in a religious sense. It is believing in something with no proof. Why would anyone do this?
When a skeptic says "I have faith in science", this is not at all the same as a Christian saying "I have faith in God." Our "faith" is based upon evidence. We've seen over and over and over again that science works, and it's there for all to see.
Religion cannot say this.
I have "faith" that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. I do not have faith that there is an invisible superbeing that no one can see, hear, smell, touch, or taste everywhere around me, when the only "proof" is a badly handled and translated book, and certain peoples' "feelings".
Hope that explains it at least somewhat...
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2002 : 13:07:04 [Permalink]
|
Suspect you chose events, that only suport your position, as me certainly would, if enjoyed the arsenal at your command. But can't accept in all of history, there is not one instance of the "church" acting to the advancement of civilization, no matter how obscure, or how reluctant the motives, that even you would concede, as your stated position would seem to suggest.
Here I'm in the same boat as you. I've never heard of one, which, of course doesn't mean that many don't exist. But it does mean that I haven't gone through the lot and picked only the ones that suit me.
In science what we try to do (I say "try" 'cause after all we're only people) is base our arguments on the facts and not just pick those facts that support our arguments.
If you have any facts to the contrary by all means let me know so that I'll be able to change my opinion and bring it better in line with reality.
The church resisted lightening rods and elevators!?! *L*
Yeah. It was thought back in the 1700's that lightening was caused by explosive dust that was in the air. This was assumed because sometimes grain storage buildings that were poorly ventilated would explode from the dust. When Ben Franklin proved that it was really electricity the first thing that he did was invent the lightening rod. However-to the church-lightening was not dust but "the wrath of GOD!!!" And this damn Deist was circumventing God's will with his Devil's tricks. So up and down the East Coast ministers preached sermons damning Benjamin Franklin; which was weird because, due to their steeples, churches were the most likely buildings to be struck by lightening and burn down. Franklin also did his bit to organize volunteer fire departments.
With little reluctance, agree in principle in so much as there remains forces and/or processes, we don't fully understand as of yet, and may be grouped into the term (supernatural) for ease of reference.
I don't think you can actually do that.
The word "supernatural" already comes with it's own definition. Things that are beyond nature.
We people have had a long history of not knowing things. Yet over the years as we have figured out, piece by piece, how the world works we have never encountered anything that was supernatural. Nothing, not one thing was beyond nature. So where would the logic be in saying that the things that we still don't know are supernatural?
"WWJD?" Dunno what this means. What Would Jesus Do?
Invariably a "better person" is not one who follows the dictates of their own mind and heart." (Disagree)
Maybe "invariably" was the wrong word to use. Christianity comes in so many thousand different sects and they all believe something different. But amongst the "born agains" this is very common. That "Apology not accepted" thread preacher guy heavily stresses this point.
Well, 'better' is a subjective term, that will morph with the winds of time in which we live. You continue by describing the unfortunate typical institutional exploitation of people's desire. In this case, one, me believes, resides within all of us, before being corrupted by the realities of our times.
How is our time different from any other time? People are still people.
The supposition that religion will make you a better person is a testable one. All you have to do is compare those who profess to be people of faith against the control group, non-believers. Non-believers make up a sizable minority so it shouldn't be too difficult to check statistics of, let's say crime and divorce, and see how the percentage of wrong doing non-believers compares with the total percentage of non-believers in society.
In fact, if believers have become better people then you can probably pick them out of a group--because they are just better than non-believers.
Give it a try. I have, and what I have found is that non-believers are completely indistinguishable from believers. You can't tell who is an Atheist by the way that they behave; you have to ask them.
So the conclusion I have reached is that the claim that belief in god will make you a better person is a false claim.
It's too bad that the Better Business Bureau can't require religion to comply with the "Truth in Advertising" laws.
You seem to enjoy a bit of the "good life." Aren't you grateful?
Yes, I've enjoyed my life very much. But I wasn't talking about lack of gratitude I was talking about being grateful to those who have actually done something. Not to institutions that demand your gratitude while lying and stealing from you.
Of all the times and conditions, you could have been born within, say as a jew in Germany in 1936, here you are, with a fulfilling career, the means to suport a pleasant life style, and still have time to waste at this.
Although the Ireland I was born into had already gotten rid of the foreign storm troopers it still had more than it's share of bloodshed. However I was born to parents who longed to be part of the New York City art world and social whirl--and did do something about fulfilling their dreams. So thanks Da, thanks Mum. But unless god actually was the co-pilot of the Super G Constellation that brought me to this grand country I've nothing to thank him for.
My career and life style I owe to a couple of scholarships, the GI bill and mostly my own hard work. Nothing supernatural has helped me on my way, only people.
And am sure you feel, and fulfill a sense of obligation to contribute to easing the human condition in some way.
Yes, I do. That's why I speak out so strongly against religion.
Gutenberg was put to death by the church?
No, Guttenberg just made some bad investments and went chapter 11. His bible was in Latin. I'm talking about the English translator of the Vulgate. I'll have to look up the specifics for you if you're interested.
But have experienced God's presence, and all senses were transformed by the experience, or so i beleive.
You're loosing me here. First you say that you haven't detected god with any of your senses then you say that you have experienced his presence. You really can't have it both ways. Things that you "experience" without the use of your senses are either fantasies or delusions. In other words they are all in your imagination and have no bases in reality.
For me it was transitory, but will not deny the experience, which me believes is available to any. ",.. Nothing to even suggest," only if you lay aside history, itself.
Why would you want to do a thing like that? It sounds like you are setting yourself up to be tricked for the fun of it. Like if you went to a magic show and "suspended your disbelief." You know that the lady hasn't really been sawn in half, but it is fun.
When was there a period in recorded history, that there wasn't a group of active believers?
According to Campbell (Renewal Myths and Rites of Primitive Hunters and Planters, Sarah Lawrence College 1961) the earliest religious sites date from before 75,000 BCE in the caves of Wildkirchi and Drachenloch in the Swiss and German Alps.
But according to Goodall (private conversation over lunch) chimps sometimes achieve high group status not by force but by psychological means. In other words instead of actually hitting and biting their rivals as alpha males do, these little guys run around dragging branches and shouting. Scaring the living hell out of the rest of the troop and enhancing their standing in it. These empty displays, I believe, are the dim beginnings of religion.
Does that suggest nothing?
It only suggests that there are two main ways to gain power (access to food, females-all the way to vast riches and control of millions of people)
One is by th |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2002 : 13:39:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
After wading through all this discussion , can't help but wonder do those who denounce religion have faith?
I have noticed that the word "faith" is one of the slippery ones when it comes to a definition. People tend to attribute their own personal meanings to this "buz" word.
Tell me what you think it means and I'll tell you if I have it, based on your definition.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2002 : 14:20:45 [Permalink]
|
Main Entry: faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b
(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
- in faith : without doubt or question : VERILY
I got this from the Merriam-Webster site. My favorite is a firm belief in something for which there is no proof 
Perhaps Skeptics should stop using the word faith and substitute it with the wordy confident based on past experience
Yeah I hate the idea, too but I am sick of hearing that business about everyone having faith because the person saying that has an extremely limited idea of what the word can mean in some contexts.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2002 : 18:59:23 [Permalink]
|
I don't think you can actually do that. The word "supernatural" already comes with it's own definition. Things that are beyond nature.
Mmmm.., yeah, you're right, though some still may, "'cause after all we're only people."
So the conclusion I have reached is that the claim that belief in god will make you a better person is a false claim.
So who made that claim? Not me. Did suggest among common traits a group of believers might share, would be the desire to be a 'better' person, as well as a sense of gratitude and obligation. Didn't in any way, mean to infer that they were exclusive, and don't think me did.
"That's why I speak out so strongly against religion." (Bingo! *L*)
Things that you "experience" without the use of your senses are either fantasies or delusions. In other words they are all in your imagination and have no bases in reality.
Doesn't 'imagination' exist in your reality?
Perhaps, but don't believe so, the experience was as real to me as any other. As far as there have always been believers, suggests to me, the experience is a common one. It is what me thinks could well be the impetus for forming a religion, sans a prophet. There was no fear with it, quite the opposite actually. It is difficult to explain, afterwards, everything was as it had always been, but different. *L* Me knows, very lame.
Like if you went to a magic show and "suspended your disbelief." You know that the lady hasn't really been sawn in half, but it is fun.
Actually do accept an element of this within estabished religions. Like when we would read the daily horoscope, or play with the I-ching, didn't really believe it, but it was fun to 'entertain' the possibility. Sometimes it would seem to have worked, too. Woooo! *L* Used to go to Christmas mass, when they were conducted in Latin, but didn't seem the same after they droped it.
Let me 'free wheel' a bit, and top that glass off with a little more crap. We come into being, hit with the full blast of reality. We "can't handle the truth!" Our intellect isn't large enough to handle reality as a 'whole.' We have to take it in little bites, 'baby steps.' We chop it up into subjects, categorize elements of reality into little boxes, separate and distinct. There is you and then there is me, us and them, rocks and dirt, solids, liquids, and gaseous, etc. Behind the insight of me 'experience,' this is the real delusion. Reality isn't sitting over there, and me over here, looking at it. Reality is everything, all happening at once, with a tip of the hat to Carl, the Comos vibrantly being. Its an acute awareness of being of the Comos, yes, one with, that sensation is what me relates as being aware of God.
!?! Truth be known, have questioned me sanity from time to time. But am reasonably certain, am no real threat to anyone's well being. And am certainly not being evangelical, just attempting to reconcile my own feelings and/or emotions, which me considers as 'real,' with my own experiences, what me knows to be, and allowing for some error.
It doesn't bother me a bit, should anyone have a different outlook as long as me own nose remains untouched. It does upset me to confront absolute veiwpoints, that leave no room for other possibilities, math excepted, however, regardless if they include a god or not. Why that is, dunno. WWJD Of course, me will forgive you, Slater. 
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
NubiWan
Skeptic Friend
USA
424 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2002 : 19:52:13 [Permalink]
|
This is a chart of the composition of the universe, the "dark" areas are what science tells us, is there, but we don't know it's properties yet, having not actually got any. There are dozens of particles, science suggests exists, but as yet, undected. Is there an element of "faith" at work here?
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2002 : 20:29:27 [Permalink]
|
No it's not faith, not in the religious sense. It's sort of like the way a number of Einstein's predictions took years to demonstrate(such as gravity bending light).
Faith would be calling the 30% 'God' for no reason at all. Calling it Dark matter in part admits that all the answers are not in.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
