Why Religion Fails
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
- Status
With respect ni many cases religious belief and faith are a substitute for complex thought processes. It is not necessary to look for an explanation or empirical evidence for the cause of events if you simply accept as an article of faith that it was caused by your particular god, The things you refer to with respect to burial etc are rituals, not really evidence of any thought process at all.
Far from a substitute. Simple thought is along the line of 'shit happens, meh'. To actually think that someone or something may be responsible is higher thinking. It not the end of the road, but just the next step.
Like fire, you see lightning strike and begins to burn something, meh. OR you look and say, 'that's neat, what could i do with that?' Then how can i store /carry it? Then how do I call it up/make it when I want to? Eventually you begin to think about how and why it works and maybe how can I make it better. Each one step along the path of complex thinking.
Thinking about a deity or more than one deity and his/her/their place in the scheme of things might be much the same thing/process. I'm no so arrogent or pompous enough to look down my nose at someone who does believe, more so at what they do/say with that belief.
'
You clearly don't know much about religion.
Try reading the writings of the early Christian church fathers, or Aquinas or Augustine, or Meister Eckhart, or Martin Luther. While you may not agree with their logic or reasoning, if you have read there work you would now that a great deal of reasoning and intellectual vigor went into their creations.
Religion, for a couple thousand years or so, takes on the issues of "why" that science cannot answer. It also takes on the issues of a proper life and how to live it, that science cannot answer either.
Religion has also been involved in the advancement of science far more than holding in back. Any student of the history of science can tell you that, and will also tell you that many of the great men of science were very religious and did what they did based out of their desire to understand god's plan as expressed through nature. Much of the alleged conflict between religion and science comes down to a small group of fanatics on either side of the fight who cannot respect different opinions or who have a need to control various people/resources.
Theocratic encroachment on Society:
http://blog.au.org/2011/03/15/alarm...medium=feed&utm_campaign=Recently-on-homepage
Ever read this quote of Martin Luther: "Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy
that faith has"?
Doesn't mean Luther was totally devoid of the mental faculty of reasoning. But you
have to be skeptical of the capability of fanatics like him of logical thinking
when it comes to matters of religion.
Still C&Ping the same tired old story from the same old web site; big whoop. Well, at least you're consistent.
How interesting, they say there are detailed points to be made in objection to the proposed law yet what Canada Man posted doesn't discuss any points at all, it merely repeats that "we don't like it, it is just horrible."
If they truly believe none of the said events have occured in the U.S., then may I suggest that they have a singular failure to read newspapers and or news magazines.
Finally, pray explain to us in what way this is a "theocratic encroachment on society" rather than merely religious freedom.
I am fairly famaliar with Luther's body of work.
Now why don't you put the quote in context and explain what he meant by it and why he said it.
Just to be fair?
Oh look our local liar is concerned that a state is guarunteeing a group freedom of expression.
What a surprise.
CM cannot stand the fact that people different from him have a right to express themselves.
You really have no idea what I know or do not know about religion. virtually all religions are based upon faith in a deity which is responsible for all earthly events. this is the opposite of reason because the search for reason is a denial of faith.
Which scientific advances was religion involved in? Those of Galileo perhaps?
I am not making a value judgment or denouncing religion at all and I believe that there is a place for faith in ones life but that does not change the nature of faith and religion.
This is simply a false dichotomy. There is plenty of reason in faith and religious doctrine. Perhaps it is the meaning of the word reason that escapes you. Or perhaps you just like to suggest anyone whose reasoning is different to yours is "unreasoning." That is simply arrogance. Religious reasoning can be complex and thorough. Try debating someone trained in a Jesuit school some time.
And I stand by my statement. If you know what "reasoning" is, and have read any of the great Christian thinkers, you would know that your suggestion is patently false.
Are you really that ignorant of the history of science to not understand what role both religion and religious individuals have played in its advance? From your comments it doesn't even look like you understand the case of Galileo.
Where would you like to start?
You are entirely correct. All functional thought systems are self-correcting. Religion included.
In fact, outdated scientific ideas hold up less well than outdated religious ideas.
But I think 10 year old may be setting the bar a little low.
As usual you try to lie to make a point.
Could you not consider honesty even once? You are the type of athiest that Einstein loathed. Simply disgraceful.
These people do not hate women...they believe that women should have a limited role. If you cannot tell the difference than you ignorant beyond my ability to describe.
On the other hand CM, you are a hater extrodinaire.
Happy to. Have some of my favourite cites on my Ipad at home. Will bring it to the office and try to get some references up in the next day or two.
Do you want some clarification on why Galileo was eventually convicted as well?
- Status
