Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
Yes. Embarrassed to have sheeple call themselves human and quite sad to see good minds wasted.
Human think. Sheeple do not.
Regards
DL
Was the first Temple Prostitute a man or a woman?
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
Yes. Embarrassed to have sheeple call themselves human and quite sad to see good minds wasted.
Human think. Sheeple do not.
Regards
DL
Uh... ur momma?
So the next time somebody points out that institutionalized monotheistic religion is in real life an enemy of reason and all that is based on reason - such as science - there will be no objection from the Protestant Christians at any rate.
The setting of faith at odds with reason, removing faith from the necessity of agreeing with reason and labeling those who insist on its agreement with reason "faithless", is one of the most effective power techniques institutionalized and political religion ever invented.
Meanwhile, any Temples providing sexual rituals would presumably have have arranged for both male and female ritual partners. Whether one terms them "prostitutes", would be another matter.
The setting of faith at odds with reason, removing reason from the necessity of agreeing with faith and labeling those who insist on its agreement with faith "irrational", is one of the most effective power techniques institutionalized and political secular culture ever invented.
You're posting all this just to make yourself feel good, eh?
You forgot the part where evidence was presented, in the form of a quote from Martin Luther you chose as exemplary, for the claim.wynn said:
Good luck with that. The insistence on the agreement of faith with reason is a hallmark of secular philosophy and discussion, the counter insistence that faith need not agree with reason - even that faith and reason are opposed, enemies - is a hallmark of fundamentalist religion and no other school of thought AFAIK.
actually its the hallmark of fideism, not faith.
There are plenty of arguments against fideism even in the sphere of "faith" without having to adopt some sort reductionist/naturalistic outlook.
In fact you could even argue that rebellion and/or criticism against fideism would be the single most defining aspect of religion in the modern age
IOW trying to dismiss/belittle faith (ie religion) because it suspends logic and reason is kind of like dismissing science because it promotes eugenics.
IOW its generally not acceptable to designate the value of a category on the strengths of weak, controversial examples ... and as wynn pointed out, tends to be the modus operandi of individuals seeking some sort of (often nefarious) political agenda.
... and as a further detail about Martin Luther's quote, who exactly of his contempories do you think was championing the cause of "reason"?
I'll give you a hint, it wasn't the new atheists .....
Last edited:
Ole Martin simply pointed out something people generally do, whether they be men of religion, or not: namely, rely on faith.
You, too, rely on faith. Maybe not the exact same faith as, say, a Christian, but it's faith nevertheless.
The question is, what faith - faith in what.
That, and you seem to assume that first comes "reason," and then "faith" must comply with it.
Sheesh, pretty much any secular modernist values faith over reason.
Just because it isn't old-style Christian faith, doesn't make it any less faith.
If Clifford's credo "It Is Wrong Everywhere, Always, and for Anyone to Believe Anything on Insufficient Evidence" were anything to go by, then no ship would ever leave harbor (in fact, no ship would ever even be built), no crops would be planted, no course of education attempted etc. etc.
It is inevitable that we act on faith. It's just that in some circles, the word "faith" has a bad reputation, so those people prefer to speak of "risk assessment" and such. But such a reconceptualization brings along its own problems.