It does tend to debunk the major religions, if not theism in the abstract (a concept so vague as to be unfalsifiable).
One God, One Book
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
Its supporting their ideology that grants one the status of fanboyWho are these people again? They're talking heads. Most atheists couldn't give two craps about religion anyway. Let alone some "celebrity" atheists
and the italics is where you call upon mental speculation to contextualize the claim
which rules are you talking about?
I guess it depends what emphasis one is placing on the word true, and whether any said thing that occupies such a status automatically establishes all others as fraudulent.
Actually even in the case of forgeries, there is a requirement for some issues too be true, even if its only a case of semblance ... what to speak of when one starts introducing the said issue in a raw state
hehe
slow down.
Might pay to re-examine your own postulations at the moment
actually there is a slippery slope on both sides of the argument.
We might begin by recognising that the concept of religion is misleading, so that our discussions become mired in misrepresentations and over-simplifications. Our modern understanding of religion is informed by a post-Enlightenment approach in which science, reason and progress have replaced religion as the organising focus of western life, but the word "religion" also has connotations associated with 19th-century western imperialism. The word derives from the Latin religio. It has had different meanings through Roman and then Christian history, but it acquired its present meaning during the quest for objective, scientific knowledge and colonial conquest which together shaped modern British history.
During the Victorian era, new "sciences" such as anthropology and ethnology developed in order to study the "primitive" peoples and societies whom Europe's empire-builders encountered in their travels. Enthusiasm for Charles Darwin's theory of evolution meant that the study of religion came into being as a way of ranking and studying other cultures in comparison to the defining norm of western civilisation, by scholars who believed that the white western male stood on the highest rung of the evolutionary ladder. The word "science" also changed its meaning during the 19th century, from a generic word used to describe all forms of knowledge including theology and philosophy, to one more narrowly focused on an objective, rationalist approach to knowledge based on empirical evidence alone. That is why the nature of the current confrontation between "science" and "religion" is so problematic, because we are dealing with two slippery concepts which come freighted with a deeply ambivalent historical legacy.
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/tinabeattie.html
there are truths to be found in many things...religions..books...life.
in my exploration of the major world religions, it seemed clear to me that the behavioral outcomes are pretty similar. the truth isn't that hidden. it's common sense really.
what sets christianity apart, imo, is the notion that there is something inherently wrong with us that we cannot fix ourselves.
and when i look at myself, and the world around me, that makes sense.
in my exploration of the major world religions, it seemed clear to me that the behavioral outcomes are pretty similar. the truth isn't that hidden. it's common sense really.
what sets christianity apart, imo, is the notion that there is something inherently wrong with us that we cannot fix ourselves.
and when i look at myself, and the world around me, that makes sense.
Marx and Lenin in heaven
Do you think that Marx and Lenin might also have entertained a singular view of the consequences of those who are ideologically opposed to them?
Doesn't everyone?
:shrug:
So what?
They were only humans and we all know what humans are in reality .
Marx and Lenin in heaven
Do you think that Marx and Lenin might also have entertained a singular view of the consequences of those who are ideologically opposed to them?
Doesn't everyone?
:shrug:
so the premises that you hold are surrounded by issues ... which in turn shadow the validity of your argument.
well to start with, if they are actually valid, they are much more than memes (in fact it would make the whole notion of calling something a meme a meme)
and secondly google henological discourse
:shrug:
I don't see what good can come from teaching someone that there may or may not be something?
Consider of a doctor told you "You might have cancer. Or you might not have cancer."
Would you consider this useful information?
Are they?
Well, I agree, IF the God of Abraham were real, it may be wise to do what It wants - belief is high on it's priority list?
henological
gazoontite!
Google?! Isn't there a Sciforums thread?
Well now, in the case of cancer we could find out for sure. But how about this: If you keep smoking cigarettes you have a high chance you may get lung cancer.
Anyway it teaches tolerance.
may be
the normative issues would become more clearer to you, if that's what you mean.
Not sure, but it does provide a means for understanding how variety can be entertained even while maintaining that a singular aspect reigns supreme.
You humans always looking for a purpose!
The memes 'only one god and only one god book' may very well be opposed to multiculturalism in the sense that this particular belief requires of its believers to reject diversity in terms of belief. That is to say one god only and outright rejection of belief in multiple gods. Can the belief be a positive force? Sure if it does not infringe upon the right of others and coexists peacefully with other religious beliefs not accepting them sure but coexisting peacefully with them nevertheless.
not necessarily
for instance take the variety of levels of matehmatics.
A person may advocate that primary school mathematics has its place, secondary school mathematics is also important, but for the purposes of understanding the complex problems of advanced physics, university grade mathematics is understood to be the best. This in no way suggests that maths learnt in previous levels is invalid.
IOW there is no essential need for variety to be diminished or relegated to falsity upon advocating a singular solution to an issue.
Tolerance for what? Risky behavior?
Saying
If you keep smoking cigarettes you have a high chance you may get lung cancer.
translates as
Even if I keep smoking cigarettes I have some chance I may not get lung cancer, so I'll take that chance and smoke because I like it so much.
in the mind of every person who is determined to enjoy themselves.
OK LG, but, suppose that one group of mathematicians suggested that all other forms of math were inferior and in some way wrong. They taught that Only their Math was True Math. Suppose these mathematicians had a Math book that they taught was the Only Math book. This math book was handed down to them from the Last Mathematician. There is no improving this Math - it's Perfect (at least in their crazy world).
Now, suppose some of the members of this math cult murdered people for adding to the already "Perfect" Math book.
Murdered people for developing new and better ways to do mathematics.
Murdered people for suggesting there was a New Mathematician.
Could the Fundamental ideologies inherent in their Math Cult be the reason why some (not all) were motivated to violence? While they may feel that attacking their intolerance ideology is an attack against themselves, it's not. It's attacking the ideology.
Think about this, how would the Fundamental ideas of: Only One True Math, Only One True Math Book and Only One True Last Mathematician have on a society? Do you think it could stunt their Mathematical development over the course of 1000s of years. Isn't this exactly what we see? Could if be that they may have problems with their neighbors (who happen to do math differently) - Isn't this something else we may see. And would it really be so surprising to see it?
Last edited: