|
|
#1971
10-10-2014, 03:00 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
Bill Gates has them beat. Most of the Catholic church's "charitable" proceeds go right back into the church, either to build new churches or to fund their latest abstinence only campaign, or to skin the dicks of African children because of some bunk study from 8 years ago. Call me whatever you want. It won't change facts. You preach about the values of diversity while at the same time vigorously defending the largest xenophobic and bigoted group. Our definitions of trash are clearly very different. If you can show me evidence that more than twenty percent of people of Abrahamic faith actually practice everything that they preach, I'll happily eat my words. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#1972
10-10-2014, 03:06 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Archalen Rising the Beguiler - 60 Enchanter
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#1973
10-10-2014, 03:07 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
This isn't about universal truth. This is the problem. I dont' believe in certainties. I believe in God, but I don't know about him. For that reason, I am inclined to value other people's worldviews. You are resolute in your conviction that what you believe is right, and it just isn't. It's an opinion that you hold. You think that we have unlocked the nature of the universe. We haven't. You'll probably say you believe in science's discoveries to the best of our present day knowledge. I'd say I believe in morality to the best of our current day knowledge. Who is right? And by the way, the way you described the world is completely compatible with a Deist's convictions. As far as how I see the world, I'd call myself a Deist. I believe in the virtues and traditions of the Baha'i faith, however. As for hurting my mother not mattering... all I can say is that pretty much justifies how I feel. Most of the things we do in this life will have zero effect on the future of the planet. But you know what, the way a son treats his mother absolutely does. My children will see this, they will learn how to treat others from my example. Why does a pitbull with a bad owner strike out compared to one whose owner raised him well? Our actions towards others on this planet matter very deeply to the course of human history. A poorly treated dog could murder a passerby, creating an orphan. That same dog, raised well, might save his owners life. The ripple effects throughout this life are unknown to all of us. You guys are so certain of everything.... Reminds me of a Bertrand Russell quote: "Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality." Or, for another: "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." I am not irrational because I believe in God. You, however, are irrational for discounting the immeasurable POSITIVE impact that humanity's collective religious traditions have had. But you know what, I'm not even certain of that. I'm humble enough to realize that that is my own biased perspective on sociology.
__________________
God Bless Texas
Free Iran | |||
|
|
||||
|
#1974
10-10-2014, 03:10 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
No, I will not. I like arguing. I think humanity would be much worse off without argument or debate. People need to have their views challenged, and in some cases offended. I have no problem offending ideas - I'm not trying to offend you personally or silence you in some way, but if your ideas are offended by argument, I can't say I really care about that. Ridiculing beliefs is important. Some beliefs simply need to be made fun of, and people are going to get offended in the process - offending people is not necessarily a positive thing, but at least it broaches the subject. | |||
|
|
||||
|
#1975
10-10-2014, 03:16 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
I'd love to know how the Catholic Church is xenophobic. I'd also like to know how a person who mentioned Muslims immigrants contaminating Sweden somehow objects to xenophobia. Interesting conundrum you have there, but children generally don't think past their anger. Finally, abortion isn't the issue. The issue is eugenics. Let me give you an example. China started the one child policy, so chinese parents, who value sons, started selecting males and aborting females. Riddle me this Batman, if abortion isn't immoral, what about the results of abortion? What would you call a modern China with 100 million more men than women? Certainly sounds moral to me!!!!! Funny how when you mess with nature, it tends to mess with you back. Eugenics is immoral. Unequivocally.
__________________
God Bless Texas
Free Iran | |||
|
|
||||
|
#1976
10-10-2014, 03:23 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
My point is that to you, my beliefs are ignorant. To me, you sound like someone who is ignorant of history and religion's practical importance to the development of humanity. For a long time, priests (not catholic, a general term) were the only literate members of society. They were the only ones who could transmit ANY knowledge from generation to generation. This isn't about God. Its about humanity's progress from hunter-gatherer to today. Religion had a positive role. What I'm saying is, if people argue like this, it takes away tiem for more productive endeavors. I could argue with Kagatob all day, but it doesn't accomplish anything. I can't convince a 30 year old bitter virgin that he's wrong, how could I? Nor could he convince me that eugenics is moral. It isn't going to happen. We have democracy for a reason. You get to vote and say your piece. In the same way, you can choose to belong to any philosophical / religious organization that you choose. It isn't compulsory. I just don't want to be judged for being different. I dealt with this shit in Iran and OVER MY DEAD BODY will people persecute my family here. There's no where else for me to flee to. Maybe you don't feel that you are persecuting me, but I see you attacking my convictions on completely baseless assumptions like: 1) Religion has something to do with idiots who believe with certitude in the existence of an anthropomorphic God 2) Religion breeds intolerance, when the arguments I see here are based upon bigotry in its purest form 3) Religion is useless and has always been so. You seem intelligent. Do I honestly seem like a dumb fuck? Seriously, I'd like to know. Do I sound like somehow who is a fucking idiot who believes God hates gay people? If you answer that question affirmatively, then I really have no other point to make. If you say "No," then I'd ask you to reconsider what you've assumed about other religious people.
__________________
God Bless Texas
Free Iran | |||
|
|
||||
|
#1977
10-10-2014, 03:36 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
|
#1978
10-10-2014, 04:00 PM
|
|||||
|
Quote:
You do seem to have a better sense of morality than most of the other deists and theists who've posted here, and I think it might be due to the fact that you're probably only a deist, and one who questions his own faith and certainty at that. Atheism doesn't mean exemption from immorality - I've attacked Kagatob plenty of times, and I've questioned leewong as well. More importantly, I question my own morality every single day that I'm alive. I like to debate and I like to argue, but I'm not trying to be condescending or project an air of moral superiority around anyone here. No one is perfect, but this also doesn't mean everyone is equal in their morals - I try to avoid false balance at all costs. Just because two people are arguing doesn't mean you can simply cancel them out and assume they're both equally wrong or equally right. Objectivity has nothing to do with impartiality. I am extremely skeptical of people who are unbiased or impartial about everything. Quote:
| ||||
|
|
|||||
|
#1979
10-10-2014, 04:30 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
Scientism is, in essence, the fetishization of science. It holds aloft the investigational methods of science as the sole criteria for establishing truth. Premised as it is upon empiricism and quantification, scientific observation is restricted to physical phenomena. Thus, only phenomena that are observable and quantifiably demonstrable are eligible for serious consideration. From the vantage point of scientism, research regarding supra-sensible entities does not qualify as a credible field of study. In his article “The Shamans of Scientism,” Michael Shermer describes scientism as: a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science. (No pagination) Scientism should not be confused with legitimate science. Its epistemological rigidity would probably discourage the genuinely investigative mind. Ironically, many of the minds that shaped modern science were not nearly as rigid. Arguably, if the innovators of previous generations had labored under such pathological skepticism, then many of them would have never discovered the breakthroughs in science and technology that this current generation enjoys. Researcher Michael Hoffman makes the distinction between science and scientism in his book Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare: Science, when practiced as the application of man’s God-given talents for the production of appropriate technology on a human scale, relief of misery and the reverential exploration and appreciation of the glory of Divine Providence as revealed in nature, is a useful tool for mankind. Scientism is science gone mad, which is what we have today. (Hoffman 49) Concerning this important distinction, Rama Coomaraswamy states: Traditional man, placing science in a hierarchal relationship to the totality of truth, sees no conflict between what is demonstrable by measurement and what he knows from Revelation. His attitude towards the “modern scientistic outlook” with its claim to the totality of truth and its refusal to recognize any moral master is, however, quite another matter. In no way can he give his assent to irrational postulates such as progress, evolution, and the perfectability of man qua man–ideas which have their origin in man’s collective subconscious rather than in God. If any conflict exists, it is not between science and faith properly understood, but between modern and traditional attitudes. (No pagination) Convinced that their outlook encompasses the “totality of truth,” the shamans of scientism are overtly hostile towards supernatural explanations. According to their criteria, all inquiry must be restricted to this ontological plane of existence. Shermer succinctly voices this so-called “modern attitude”: . . .cosmology and evolutionary theory ask the ultimate origin questions that have traditionally been the province of religion and theology. Scientism is courageously proffering naturalistic answers that supplant supernaturalistic ones and in the process is providing spiritual sustenance for those whose needs are not being met by these ancient cultural traditions. (No pagination) Scientism is epistemological imperialism. It stipulates the ecumenical imposition of science upon all fields of study. No doubt, a majority of contemporary thinkers would regard this universal extrapolation of science as desirable. After all, science has contributed to the technological advancement of human society. It harnessed electricity through the light bulb, cured illnesses through inoculations, and traversed space through rockets. Surely, such a force could equally enhance the human condition if applied to questions of history, morality, and governance. However, the contemporary mind, blinded as it is by its own chronocentricism, has failed to recognize a significant shortcoming in the investigational methods of science. Michael Hoffman reveals this shortcoming: The reason that science is a bad master and dangerous servant and ought not to be worshipped is that science is not objective. Science is fundamentally about the uses of measurement. What does not fit the yardstick of the scientist is discarded. Scientific determinism has repeatedly excluded some data from its measurement and fudged other data, such as Piltdown Man, in order to support the self-fulfilling nature of its own agenda, be it Darwinism or “cut, burn and poison” methods of cancer “treatment.” (49) Indeed, as a system of quantification, science can concern itself only with quantifiable entities. Items that defy quantification must be precluded. This prompts a disturbing question. Exactly what items must an exclusively scientific outlook omit? The answer is provided in The Report from Iron Mountain, a document purporting to be the product of a secret government think tank: Previous studies have taken the desirability of peace, the importance of human life, the superiority of democratic institutions, the greatest “good” for the greatest number, the “dignity” of the individual, and other such wishful premises as axiomatic values necessary for the justification of a study of peace issues. We have not found them so. We have attempted to apply the standards of physical science to our thinking, the principal characteristic of which is not quantification, as is popularly believed, but that, in Whitehead’s words, “. . .it ignores all judgments of value; for instance, all esthetic and moral judgments.” (Lewin 13-14; emphasis added) An exclusively scientific approach jettisons all “axiomatic values.” The “esthetic and moral judgments” that preserve man’s humanity must be totally disregarded in a purely scientistic society. In fact, man himself must be altered. Because man’s humanity poses a problem for a state governed according to a system of quantification, that particular attribute of his being must be expunged. Hoffman provides an eloquent summation: The doctrine of man playing god reaches its nadir in the philosophy of scientism which makes possible the complete mental, spiritual and physical enslavement of mankind through technologies such as satellite and computer surveillance; a state of affairs symbolized by the “All Seeing Eye” above the unfinished pyramid on the U.S. one dollar bill. (50) The truncated pyramid mounted by the “All Seeing Eye” represents the blueprint according to which society is being re-sculpted. It is the standard schematic for authoritarian governments, which ride into dominance astride the epistemological imperialism of scientism | |||
|
|
||||
|
#1980
10-10-2014, 04:32 PM
|
||||
|
Quote:
| |||
|
|
||||
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
