If religion isn't a motivator for violence...

[S.A.M.]

So whats the difference between a strong and weak atheist?

They lack a belief in more than one god? in many gods? in a particular god?

 

[pavlosmarcos]

So whats the difference between a strong and weak atheist?

They lack a belief in more than one god? in many gods? in a particular god?

WOW! unbelieveable.
the strong atheist is positive no deities exist. a weak atheist has a lack of belief in deities, without the adding that deities do not exist.
another way of puting it is, Weak atheism is defined negatively as the absence of belief in God. Strong atheism is defined positively as the belief that God does not exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism

http://sky.fit.qut.edu.au/~hostuart/why.atheism2.html

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm
this should help clarify it for you.

 

[KennyJC]

I don't even think the definition is important. I simply don't believe in any religious BS ideas and I don't believe the universe was created by intelligence. Wether that makes me agnostic or weak atheist doesn't matter.

 

[The Devil Inside]

i agree. definition doesnt matter, if the belief is a negative (as in "i dont believe in this") one.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

I think if one were attempting to build up a model of the universe, based on scientific principles, you wouldn't include a God/gods as a necessary part of that model. They are unnecessary, non-rational and offend occum's razor. This seems to be the weak atheists position.

However, theists seek something extra and external to the basic 'from the ground up' scientific model of the universe, that has to do with meaning, richness of life, finding fulfilment in life etc. St. Augustine (who was quite a cool dude) saw Christianity as 'finding the way home' because he felt himself an alien in the world. Glimpses of this 'inner experience' e.g. of a 'spiritual home', are the theists evidence for continuing in his/her belief.

No-one would get passionate for an accepted fact like 2+2=4. It is because the basis of belief is so personal and unprovable, and because not only our worldview but the whole meaning of our lives is at stake that people become passionate about religion. Such passion often leads to justifications of violence, despite many admonitions against violence in ALL the major religions.

In a secular worldview, we might justify use of weapons on the basis of 'defending democracy' or 'the rule of law'. It is much the same principle.

 

[lightgigantic]

Not sure what this thread is supposed to illustrate (after reading the opening)

How many people have dies for justice?
How many people have died for money?
How many people have died for even science?
How many people have died for love?

If we want to insist on judging evrything by its most extreme example why not throw out everything? Will we be satisfied then?

 

[KennyJC]

However, theists seek something extra and external to the basic 'from the ground up' scientific model of the universe, that has to do with meaning, richness of life, finding fulfilment in life etc. St. Augustine (who was quite a cool dude) saw Christianity as 'finding the way home' because he felt himself an alien in the world. Glimpses of this 'inner experience' e.g. of a 'spiritual home', are the theists evidence for continuing in his/her belief.

I suppose I agree with what you said... although you would have been more accurate in describing it as humans needing superstition for emotional benefit. Religion is just one example. Astrology is another.

No-one would get passionate for an accepted fact like 2+2=4. It is because the basis of belief is so personal and unprovable, and because not only our worldview but the whole meaning of our lives is at stake that people become passionate about religion. Such passion often leads to justifications of violence, despite many admonitions against violence in ALL the major religions.

Such violence is part of the foundation of religion in the first place. Littered in scripture, violence is condoned as part of their faith.

In a secular worldview, we might justify use of weapons on the basis of 'defending democracy' or 'the rule of law'. It is much the same principle.

No it's not. Defending democracy isn't the same as defending baseless fantasy and supersition.

Not sure what this thread is supposed to illustrate (after reading the opening)

How many people have dies for justice?
How many people have died for money?
How many people have died for even science?
How many people have died for love?

If we want to insist on judging evrything by its most extreme example why not throw out everything? Will we be satisfied then?

Obviously you don't understand the perspective an atheist has on this for someone to be killed purely because they are of a different (or no) faith? I can't think of a more stupid reason for humans to take part in violence on such a massive scale.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

I suppose I agree with what you said... although you would have been more accurate in describing it as humans needing superstition for emotional benefit. Religion is just one example. Astrology is another.

I think your latter rephrasing is loaded with presuppositions, which I was trying to avoid. Religion is not just 'superstition' - it is not even primarily a metaphysical belief system. It claims to be a way of transforming ourselves in order to see and realise certain 'inner truth' that is not obvious.

Such violence is part of the foundation of religion in the first place. Littered in scripture, violence is condoned as part of their faith.

There is a lot of violence in e.g. the Bible, because human beings are violent, not the other way round! Most of the violence is either punishment (primitive tribal justice) or war (primitive tribal resource management). Both are codified and described in the OT, but are ubiquitous human activities, even in secular societies.

No it's not. Defending democracy isn't the same as defending baseless fantasy and supersition.

Ah, but only because you believe in one but not the other!

Obviously you don't understand the perspective an atheist has on this for someone to be killed purely because they are of a different (or no) faith? I can't think of a more stupid reason for humans to take part in violence on such a massive scale.

Different race? Different culture? Different nationality? Different politics? Different football team? People get killed for all the above.

Just 'different' is enough - remember the fatties and four-eyes and wops and wogs and nerds getting picked on at school? Why, because they were 'different' from the majority and humans are vicious tribalists at heart. Religion is just another 'difference', not the cause of our violent natures. Chimpanzees do the same.

 

[KennyJC]

I think your latter rephrasing is loaded with presuppositions, which I was trying to avoid. Religion is not just 'superstition' - it is not even primarily a metaphysical belief system. It claims to be a way of transforming ourselves in order to see and realise certain 'inner truth' that is not obvious.

Are you accepting the fact that religion is therefor just for emotional benefits and that the claims made in the Bible are not meant to have taken place?

There is a lot of violence in e.g. the Bible, because human beings are violent, not the other way round! Most of the violence is either punishment (primitive tribal justice) or war (primitive tribal resource management). Both are codified and described in the OT, but are ubiquitous human activities, even in secular societies.

When religion rules (even in the present day), these acts of 'primitive tribal justice' remain. It's only where control of religion has slipped that you can no longer kill a woman for comitting adultry, or converting to another faith. So I don't agree that anything similar can be found in secular societies today unless you could provide links. Nevertheless, such primitive behaviour is condoned and encouraged in the holy book which you presumably hold to be the word of God.

Ah, but only because you believe in one but not the other!

Amazing. Moderates continue to try to equate bullshit superstition with things that have a basis in reality. I'm fed up with this useless tactic because it doesn't even have a point. I believe in the flying spaghetti monster which means I have a 50/50 chance of being correct seeing as it is a matter of belief versus non-belief? Right? That is what you're saying.

Different race? Different culture? Different nationality? Different politics? Different football team? People get killed for all the above.

Race/culture/nationality equate to the same intolerance more or less. And I agree that it is as bad as violence that stems from religion in terms of it's stupdity and popularity. However, this is a right wing problem mostly demonstrated by those who could be called fundamentally religious. Religion gives a group of people the notion of being 'the-chosen-ones'. This was perfectly demonstrated by how the blacks were treated in the bible belt in the 60's (and today).

Politics is different altogether. Unless of course it is run by people who are strongly religious of course, then you have violence.

Football team? Well where I come from, Glasgow is divided by two football teams, and this does cause violence. But why? It doesn't happen anywhere else in great numbers... Oh I know why, Celtic supporters are Catholic and Rangers supporters are protestant! This is where faith schools come into the picture. Obviously raising children into faith which is divided is not a good idea.

Just 'different' is enough - remember the fatties and four-eyes and wops and wogs and nerds getting picked on at school? Why, because they were 'different' from the majority and humans are vicious tribalists at heart. Religion is just another 'difference', not the cause of our violent natures. Chimpanzees do the same.

Yes but lets focus on issues of violence that cause death to millions and can actually be helped. Such as secularizing politics all over the world, putting and end to faith in schools and accepting religion as superstition. The rest of the world should be aiming to follow Europe and it's improvements due to lowering the imporance religion plays in the running of society.

 

[lightgigantic]

"Obviously you don't understand the perspective an atheist has on this for someone to be killed purely because they are of a different (or no) faith? I can't think of a more stupid reason for humans to take part in violence on such a massive scale. "

- Then if we can find examples of people who have killed purely in the name of science, love, economy, family, etc we can also throw these social institutions out the window too?

Is failure in a particular circumstance sufficient to apply rejection?

 

[KennyJC]

- Then if we can find examples of people who have killed purely in the name of science, love, economy, family, etc we can also throw these social institutions out the window too?

Killing in the name of superstition is a different thing altogether however. Not that any killing is justified, but killing the name of religion is equally as stupid as the witch burnings.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

I think you are stuck in a groove Kenny! By asserting as a self evident truth, the presumption that all religion is just "bullshit superstition", you have closed your mind to any other possibility. Such is the stuff of all fanatical beliefs - they are not open to doubt.

Politics is different altogether. Unless of course it is run by people who are strongly religious of course, then you have violence.

Glasgow is divided by two football teams, and this does cause violence. But why? It doesn't happen anywhere else in great numbers... Oh I know why, Celtic supporters are Catholic and Rangers supporters are protestant!

You really believe only religious politicians or football fans are intolerant or violent!? What planet are you on? I suppose Millwall supporters are secretively spiritual, or Villa fans hold prayer meetings before every punch-up!

Intolerant fanatics are found in all important areas of human activity. Political fanatics are the scariest. I also intensely dislike religious fanatics, (and football fanatics) too. However, fanaticism isn’t caused by religion, any more than it is caused by politics or football. There are also many moderates in both. Some people are just prone to fanaticism - i.e. they are closed to any other viewpoint. The content is of their fanaticism is less important.

Yes but lets focus on issues of violence that cause death to millions and can actually be helped. Such as secularizing politics all over the world, putting and end to faith in schools and accepting religion as superstition.

Your thesis that the abolition of religion will abolish violence and oppression is a bit naive. You only have to look at countries where this was attempted (e.g. USSR, China, Cambodia) to see that state violence, repression and fear proliferated in these countries. Violence springs from human tribalism creating a hostile 'other'. This hostile 'other' can be religious, but can also be political, national, cultural, racial, team based - or based on just about anything!

Are you accepting the fact that religion is therefor just for emotional benefits and that the claims made in the Bible are not meant to have taken place?

Amazing. Moderates continue to try to equate bullshit superstition with things that have a basis in reality. I'm fed up with this useless tactic because it doesn't even have a point. I believe in the flying spaghetti monster which means I have a 50/50 chance of being correct seeing as it is a matter of belief versus non-belief? Right? That is what you're saying.

Religion is not superstition. It is a way of discovering a certain type of truth - not the same as scientific truth, but in many ways more important. This is not just for 'emotional benefits', but about a fundamental realisation of what we are. Many atheists become Buddhists - the goal is much the same as for a Christian or Muslim, though the beliefs are different.

This is not so dissimilar to a belief in "democracy". Try persuading a BM fascist of the value of democracy - or proving it to him scientifically!

Nevertheless, such primitive behaviour is condoned and encouraged in the holy book which you presumably hold to be the word of God.

You mentioned the Bible. I believe the Bible is a mixture of song, poetry, story telling, mythology and reporting of actual incidents. Every word is not literal truth but, like a map, it can help point the way to certain 'eternal' truths. That is it's value. However, much of it reflects the context in which it was written - e.g. bronze age nomadic tribal culture.

 

[audible]

I think you are stuck in a groove Kenny! By asserting as a self evident truth, the presumption that all religion is just "bullshit superstition",

sorry to intervene here, theres can be no presumption, what else is religion, if it has no basis in fact.
the very word Religion is defined as
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

you have closed your mind to any other possibility.

as there are none, what else can your mind be, it is self -evident.

Such is the stuff of all fanatical beliefs - they are not open to doubt.

and why would there be, it is self-evident.

Religion is not superstition. It is a way of discovering a certain type of truth

the truth, is the truth, there are not different kinds, please dont be stupid.

not the same as scientific truth, but in many ways more important.

again there is only one kind of truth, however it you wish to imagine a square being a circle, you can inagine that as truth all you want. but it wont be the truth in reality will it.

It is about discovering the depths of our nature as complex 'beings'. "Know thyself". This is not just for 'emotional benefits', but about realisation of what we are.

and why do we need a diety or religion to do this I am as one with myself and my surroundings.

Many atheists become Buddhists

sorry this is impossible, nobody goes for common sense to fantasy. buddhism being one of the better religions but it still believe in the spiritual.

You mentioned the Bible. I believe the Bible is a mixture of song, poetry, story telling, mythology and reporting of actual incidents.

this has not been shown to be true. some links please.

Every word is not literal truth but, like a map, it can help point the way to certain 'eternal' truths.

again with these imaginary truths. any book can point you in the right direction, especially if it has a moral stance.

 

[KennyJC]

I think you are stuck in a groove Kenny! By asserting as a self evident truth, the presumption that all religion is just "bullshit superstition", you have closed your mind to any other possibility. Such is the stuff of all fanatical beliefs - they are not open to doubt.

Religion is superstitious bullshit, full stop. 100% made-up crap. If I was being completely rational I would say that there is a 99 point infinite nine percent chance of it being made-up crap. But for the sake of simplicity it is 100% false.

You really believe only religious politicians or football fans are intolerant or violent!? What planet are you on? I suppose Millwall supporters are secretively spiritual, or Villa fans hold prayer meetings before every punch-up!

I never said that. I said that existing violence in politics and football fans is not as bad as it would be when you inject a dose of religious tension in there. The two regions most religious are also the two most prone to starting wars via 'politics'... America and the Middle East. As for football fans, like I said, Celtic and Rangers related violence would dwarf almost any football rivalry. This is due to religious secarianism. This starts from the fact that in my area, children are sent to faith schools (catholic or protestant), where sectarianism breeds from the get go, thanks to this instant division from 5 years of age. The football team is just another part of this horrible picture.

Intolerant fanatics are found in all important areas of human activity. Political fanatics are the scariest.

I'll need some examples of a 'political fanatic'. At least ones in secular democracies if you please.

I also intensely dislike religious fanatics, (and football fanatics) too. However, fanaticism isn’t caused by religion, any more than it is caused by politics or football.

What is your version of a religious fanatic? For me it is one who follows their holy book of choice to the letter, which means they give equal relevance to the nasty parts of scripture as they do the 'good'. You only focus on the nicey nicey parts for example, and make perverted justifications for the not so nice parts. So basically, this intolerance comes directly from 'the word of God'. And even if the behaviour of 'fanatics' is not described anywhere in scripture, it is obviously influenced by it.

There are also many moderates in both. Some people are just prone to fanaticism - i.e. they are closed to any other viewpoint. The content is of their fanaticism is less important.

There's nothing like having the 'word of God' on your side though. People genuinely believe that. That is the true danger.

Your thesis that the abolition of religion will abolish violence and oppression is a bit naive.

It would be naive but I never said that I wanted to abolish religion or that it would put and end to violence. I'm saying religion should be personal choice and people should be free to be that stupid if they want to. But it should have no place in schools or politics. If it has no part in those institutions then then that should be enough to reduce religion based violence and intolerance to acceptable levels. It would also therefor not allow religious superstition to effect rational people by some of the downright stupid religious based laws that are passed, such as blocking stem cell research and other such stupidities.

You only have to look at countries where this was attempted (e.g. USSR, China, Cambodia) to see that state violence, repression and fear proliferated in these countries. Violence springs from human tribalism creating a hostile 'other'. This hostile 'other' can be religious, but can also be political, national, cultural, racial, team based - or based on just about anything!

Haven't we been over this 100 times already? Dictatorships are a dangerous thing even if they are not based on religious ideologies.

Religion is not superstition. It is a way of discovering a certain type of truth - not the same as scientific truth, but in many ways more important. This is not just for 'emotional benefits', but about a fundamental realisation of what we are. Many atheists become Buddhists - the goal is much the same as for a Christian or Muslim, though the beliefs are different.

Again, you don't need to subscribe to a holy book for this. Religion is superstition if you believe that any of the events in your holy book are true, in the same manner you would accept non-fiction literature as being true. It's a fantasy world. A world where people walk on water and talk to burning bushes. Superstition. Religion has no fundamental realisation of 'what we are' more than anything else does. You are remarkably vague here in an effort to make religion sound rational.

This is not so dissimilar to a belief in "democracy". Try persuading a BM fascist of the value of democracy - or proving it to him scientifically!

Whatever a 'BM' fascist is. But democracy is not a belief, at least none more so than anything else that has a basis in reality.

You mentioned the Bible. I believe the Bible is a mixture of song, poetry, story telling, mythology and reporting of actual incidents. Every word is not literal truth but, like a map, it can help point the way to certain 'eternal' truths. That is it's value. However, much of it reflects the context in which it was written - e.g. bronze age nomadic tribal culture.

Eternal truths? You are getting all vague again. I smell BULLSHIT!

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

sorry to intervene here, theres can be no presumption, what else is religion, if it has no basis in fact.
the very word Religion is defined as
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

Thank you for those very helpful definitions audible. So, where is religion defined as being 'bullshit superstition'?

as there are none, what else can your mind be, it is self -evident.

Maybe not on your planet, but look around and you will see that it IS possible to believe that religion is NOT just 'bullshit superstition' (such people are called theists). It is therefore NOT self-evident - unless you have a closed mind of course!

the truth, is the truth, there are not different kinds, please dont be stupid.

again there is only one kind of truth, however it you wish to imagine a square being a circle, you can inagine that as truth all you want. but it wont be the truth in reality will it.

LOL, I think you may be being stupid audible - or at least simple-headed! I'm aware of many types of truth, whose value as 'truth' is attested to in very different ways.

For example, there is legal truth (what a witness swears to) and allegorical truth (e.g. Aesops fables) and literal truth (textbook stuff) and scientific truth (water boils at 100 degC under 1 atmos) and mathematical truth (2+2=4) and poetic truth (love is a many splendoured thing) and psychological truth (guilt often leads to repression) and ethical truth (murder is never justified) and religious truth (God is the ground of our being).

So, for example, when the US constitution says

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Is this stating a proven scientific fact, a legal truth or something else?

You might want to look up "Truth" on Wiki. It's not as simple as you seem to imagine!

and why do we need a diety or religion to do this I am as one with myself and my surroundings.

Because it is limited what we can do for ourselves. We are stuck in time/space, and our perceptions are often limited by that. When theists talk of 'grace' it is that power of transformation that they are referring to.

sorry this is impossible, nobody goes for common sense to fantasy. buddhism being one of the better religions but it still believe in the spiritual.

Your 'common sense' is another person's term for 'ignorance'. We are not all alike audible. I know of a number of Buddhist atheists. Spirituality is something many 'common sense' people seek.

this has not been shown to be true. some links please. again with these imaginary truths. any book can point you in the right direction, especially if it has a moral stance.

Maybe you could try picking up a copy of the Bible - inside you will see that there are songs e.g. "Song of Solomon", poetry e.g. "Psalms", story telling e.g. "Job", mythology e.g. "Genesis" and reporting of actual incidents e.g. "Acts" and the four gospels.

What 'truth' you discover in them is up to you...

 

[Creeping Death]

Early Christian Writings Often, Though Not Universally, Rejected A Christian's Involvement In War. This Was Due In Part To The Societies In Which They Lived (Believers Saw No Value In Striving To Preserve Or Extend These un-Christian Or Even Anti-Christian States), And In Part To The Expectation Of The Parousia. From The Time Of Constantine, Early Christian Thought Was More Willing To Accommodate The Possibility Of War, With The Church And State Often Sharing Common Interests. St. Augustine (+430) Defended War When Undertaken For The Good Of Society And When Its End Was Peace.

However, The Many Wars Of The Middle Ages Led Aquinas (+ 1274) And Other Theologians To Develop A Set Of Conditions For A "Just War": 1) It Must Be On The Authority Of The Sovereign (Auctoritas Principis); 2) The Cause Must Be Just (Justa Causa); 3) The Combatants Must Have The Right Intentions (Recta Intentio), Intending The Extension Of Good And Avoidance Of Evil. Francisco De Vitoria (+ 1546) Added The Further Condition That The War Must Be Waged Using "Proper Means" (Debito Modo). The Advent Of Nuclear Weapons And The Preponderance Of Religiously-Motivated Conflicts Have Brought These Conditions Under Renewed Scrutiny.

 

[audible]

Thank you for those very helpful definitions audible. So, where is religion defined as being 'bullshit superstition'?

superstition
1. An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
2.
1. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith (Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, immaterial) in magic or chance.
2. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
3. Idolatry.
supernatural
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world, immaterial.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.
spiritual
1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material, immaterial.
2. Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
3. Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
4. Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
5. Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.
bullshit
To attempt to mislead or deceive by talking nonsense.

supernatural, spiritual, and superstition, all refer to the immaterial. therefore refering to the immaterial as truth is talking nonsense, then it can only be deemed bullshit-superstition.

Maybe not on your planet, but look around and you will see that it IS possible to believe that religion is NOT just 'bullshit superstition' (such people are called theists). It is therefore NOT self-evident - unless you have a closed mind of course!

these poor bastards have suffered the mind virus far worse than most, my heart goes out to them.
lets hope one day they will find a cure.

LOL, I think you may be being stupid audible - or at least simple-headed! I'm aware of many types of truth, whose value as 'truth' is attested to in very different ways.

For example, there is legal truth (what a witness swears to)

so you mean because they can lie, that alters the truth, well duh the truth would still be the truth

and allegorical truth (e.g. Aesops fables)

using a fable or a parable to explain a fact, still means the truth remains the truth.

and literal truth (textbook stuff)

is just stating the facts, so the truth remains the truth,

and scientific truth (water boils at 100 degC under 1 atmos) and mathematical truth (2+2=4)

just stating the facts so again the truth is still the same.

and poetic truth (love is a many splendoured thing) and psychological truth (guilt often leads to repression) and ethical truth (murder is never justified)

nothing you have said has change the truth the truth is universal it cannot change just to suit your feeling, if one and one make two, it not going to be three, just to make you happy it will always be two. objective reality is objective reality, unless you imagine it some what different, then it becomes subjective reality.

and religious truth (God is the ground of our being).

with what reasoning to you base this.

So, for example, when the US constitution says Is this stating a proven scientific fact, a legal truth or something else?

stating an actual fact, but they spoil it, by adding this bit, "endowed by their Creator"

You might want to look up "Truth" It's not as simple as you seem to imagine!

Truth, That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence
Reality, actuality, Sincerity, integrity, oh yes it is that simple, but if your imagination wishes it to be something else, then thats up to you, but it does'nt change a thing objectively.

Because it is limited what we can do for ourselves. We are stuck in time/space, and our perceptions are often limited by that. When theists talk of 'grace' it is that power of transformation that they are referring to.

irrelevant ramblings, you may be limited, but not I.

Your 'common sense' is another person's term for 'ignorance'.

common sense is universal, but the religious are ignorant to it, agreed.

We are not all alike audible. I know of a number of Buddhist atheists.

no you dont.
people who use their sense, reason and intellect, just dont go backward.

Spirituality is something many 'common sense' people seek.

no it is'nt dont be stupid.

Maybe you could try picking up a copy of the Bible

been there done that and brought the t shirt, came to my senses. no longer blinkered. see the objective truth with both eyes open, dont wear a blindfold anymore.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

supernatural, spiritual, and superstition, all refer to the immaterial. therefore refering to the immaterial as truth is talking nonsense, then it can only be deemed bullshit-superstition.

Ah, so anything "immaterial" = "bullshit-superstition"

So, time or pain or your memory of yesterday or the humour in a joke - all these are immaterial and therefore just "bullshit-superstition" - they don't really exist? What evidence do you base this astounding theory on?

so you mean because they can lie, that alters the truth, well duh the truth would still be the truth using a fable or a parable to explain a fact, still means the truth remains the truth. is just stating the facts, so the truth remains the truth, just stating the facts so again the truth is still the same. nothing you have said has change the truth the truth is universal it cannot change just to suit your feeling, if one and one make two, it not going to be three, just to make you happy it will always be two. objective reality is objective reality, unless you imagine it some what different, then it becomes subjective reality. with what reasoning to you base this.

You've missed the point. Yes, they are all forms of truth - but can you prove "love is a many splendoured thing" scientifically, or mathematically? No it is a poetic truth. Is an Aesop fable a factual witness account? No, it's truth is contained in the moral of the story. Similarly with the constitution - it's truth is not provable scientifically or factually, because it is a statement of values.

So, there are many sorts of truth - of which religious truth is but one. Because it cannot be proved scientifically, doesn't destroy it's value as truth. I'm surprised you don't know that - I would have thought it blindingly obvious.

no you dont.
people who use their sense, reason and intellect, just dont go backward.

How do you know I don't? Many people have converted to religion - you seem to make a lot of statements based on absolutely no evidence audible?

been there done that and brought the t shirt, came to my senses. no longer blinkered. see the objective truth with both eyes open, dont wear a blindfold anymore.

No? Are you sure you haven't exchanged one set of blinkers for another?

 

[lightgigantic]

Killing in the name of superstition is a different thing altogether however. Not that any killing is justified, but killing the name of religion is equally as stupid as the witch burnings.

Then you have to examine the general principles you are applying to determine that an activity (in this case witch burning) is a central (as opposed to irregular) element to religion and also provide examples why such institutions that operate under the same general principles (like for instance if their are instances of racial homicide inthe name of politics and economic development, is it also relevant to disregard them as mallific social bodies not integral to existence?)

But to do that you will have to put aside flaring animosity and talk of the logic of your general principles (outside of "religion" "witch burning" etc)

 

[audible]

Ah, so anything "immaterial" = "bullshit-superstition"

oh do come on, you know what is meant, immaterial in the sense of inconsequential, trivial, unimportant, unnecessary meaningless.

So, time or pain or your memory of yesterday or the humour in a joke - all these are immaterial

no these can be measured, or have an effect on reality, so are not meaningless, inconsequential, or trivial.

and therefore just "bullshit-superstition" - they don't really exist?

maybe not to you, but to everybody else who live in the real world they do.

What evidence do you base this astounding theory on?

reality.

You've missed the point. Yes, they are all forms of truth - but can you prove "love is a many splendoured thing" scientifically, or mathematically?

yes love is a chemical reaction, that can be measured.

So, there are many sorts of truth - of which religious truth is but one.

religious truth is subjective therefore cannot be deemed as truth in the objective/reality.

Because it cannot be proved scientifically, doesn't destroy it's value as truth. I'm surprised you don't know that - I would have thought it blindingly obvious.

it's has no value as truth else we could say the fsm and the ipu are true, also, but no of course we cant they are only subjective.

How do you know I don't? Many people have converted to religion

not without some kind of trauma in their lives. there is no other way.

No? Are you sure you haven't exchanged one set of blinkers for another?

maybe, but I can see, through these, and what I see is reality.