Another Way to Use Religion for Political Purposes

[Chips Rafferty]

I believe "love" exists. Provide me with unshakable proof it is not just familarity or hormones at work.

When, oh WHEN is someone finally going to point out to poor ignorant Gummy that his signature saying,

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.

says it all about about his magic underwear centric superstition?

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Except it is still "belief", reread the quote in my post or the original post I got it from. He is insisting one can only belief something if faith is involved.

Now on a separate note, I can show that faith is involved in Science. Science uses educated guess work, based on assumptions, to create and "test" theories and hypothese. Faith occurs when one believes something with out absolute proof of it's existance. Happens all the time in science.

That they test the theories and such does not eliminate the core "faith" that A) the system used will work and B) Science will solve all problems.

Here, Dummy. Here is a Little Golden Book type example of applied science, and why it is far more beneficial to society than that mendacious Jewish mumbo-jumbo that “believers” force on us.

If a clearly abnormal person can’t scientifically explain their obviously psychiatrically disturbed claim that their enchanted Kelvin Kleins, cum sin-deflecting flack vest, makes them impervious to an imaginary Jewish genie’s evil wiles, “the authorities” quite rightly lock them up in a lunatic asylum for other people's safety.

 

[Diuretic]

According to some Religion is a process, a human process, invented by humans to control our societies.

That's a fair point, some have claimed that and no doubt they can point to evidence to support the claim. There's also some conjecture that humans are hard-wired in the brain to have faith in a deity. Obviously there needs to be some work on that.

And the claim one can not have a "belief" in science is ludicrous on its face.

Well that depends on how you define "belief". But I see Ruby has sorted that one out and I certainly can't improve on Ruby's post

 

[Diuretic]

Except it is still "belief", reread the quote in my post or the original post I got it from. He is insisting one can only belief something if faith is involved.

Now on a separate note, I can show that faith is involved in Science. Science uses educated guess work, based on assumptions, to create and "test" theories and hypothese. Faith occurs when one believes something with out absolute proof of it's existance. Happens all the time in science.

That they test the theories and such does not eliminate the core "faith" that A) the system used will work and B) Science will solve all problems.

Since science depends on doubt for its efficacy I think we can toss out any notion of "belief" being involved in the scientific process. Read Thomas Kuhn or even a summary of Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". Science is all about doubt, not sureness, not faith, not belief. It only progresses when old ideas (Kuhn called them "paradigms" - as opposed to "paracletes" - ho ho religious pun there) are shown to be wrong and newer explanations do a better job. That is the utter opposite of dogma, dogma keeping religions toddling along.

 

[Diuretic]

I believe "love" exists. Provide me with unshakable proof it is not just familarity or hormones at work.

Of course "love" exists. But it depends on the type of "love" you mean.

Is it sexual lust? Hah that's a product of hormones, what we call the mental state is "lust". Just words of course.

If you mean romantic love, as in "not lust but will be if I can get her around to it," that's hormones as well. Those old genes driving us along deep and dark paths so the little buggers can continue on down the ages.

But if you mean a "love" that isn't sexual then yes, that's probably not hormonal. The Greeks called it agape (you have to use a guttural on the 'g' like a hrrrr sound). Even that may have a hormonal basis too, if you read Demond Morris in "The Naked Ape" he explains pair-bonding and its place as an evolved behaviour in many animals. But early Christians used the Greek idea of agape but gave it their own special religious meaning.

 

[Alucard]

That's funny, I've seen that tactic used before, "you're an atheist, you worship atheism, therefore you're religious!" And the Darwin one, "you worship evolution, you're religious!"

Religion: and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects

Beliefs Alucard, beliefs. Belief implies faith. Science thrives on doubt and uncertainty. It's not possible to worship "science" because science is a process, a human process, invented by humans to advance our knowledge.

I find it richly amusing when the religious amongst us point to the non-religious amongst us and accuse of being "religious". It's not offensive, just amusing. It's also a bit sad to see that some of us simply don't understand the difference. Follow your faith by all means Alucard, and others, but try to keep a clear mind.

Nowhere in the definition of religion does it mention FAITH or GOD, it is "a specific fundamental set of beliefs"

Where is the evidence showing man evolved?.... I'll save you the trouble... there is none... What I find amusing is people call themselves non religious then give a long list of things they "believe"...

And more amusing is people talk of Darwinism as if there is some scientific proof to support the theory when there is none... Since there is no evidence... they must have FAITH that Darwin was correct...

Darwinism is the "belief" man evolved... Regardless of how absurd the idea. and the fact that the theory has been deemed impossible by Darwin himself and countless scientists since...

 

[Gunny]

Nowhere in the definition of religion does it mention FAITH or GOD, it is "a specific fundamental set of beliefs"

Where is the evidence showing man evolved?.... I'll save you the trouble... there is none... What I find amusing is people call themselves non religious then give a long list of things they "believe"...

And more amusing is people talk of Darwinism as if there is some scientific proof to support the theory when there is none... Since there is no evidence... they must have FAITH that Darwin was correct...

Darwinism is the "belief" man evolved... Regardless of how absurd the idea. and the fact that the theory has been deemed impossible by Darwin himself and countless scientists since...

You forgot the denial that it amounts to the same thing.

 

[Diuretic]

Nowhere in the definition of religion does it mention FAITH or GOD, it is "a specific fundamental set of beliefs"

Where is the evidence showing man evolved?.... I'll save you the trouble... there is none... What I find amusing is people call themselves non religious then give a long list of things they "believe"...

And more amusing is people talk of Darwinism as if there is some scientific proof to support the theory when there is none... Since there is no evidence... they must have FAITH that Darwin was correct...

Darwinism is the "belief" man evolved... Regardless of how absurd the idea. and the fact that the theory has been deemed impossible by Darwin himself and countless scientists since...

Evidence? There's a corpus of scientific evidence. However if you refuse to accept it then fair enough, you don't have to and I wouldn't ask you to.

Any scientific theory has to have evidence or it's not a theory. Read about Lamarck if you don't understand what I mean.

Why is evolution an absurdity?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Evidence? There's a corpus of scientific evidence. However if you refuse to accept it then fair enough, you don't have to and I wouldn't ask you to.

Any scientific theory has to have evidence or it's not a theory. Read about Lamarck if you don't understand what I mean.

Why is evolution an absurdity?

Ohh it does? Is there a theory about how the Universe began? Is there a theory about how life began on earth?

Last I checked neither of them have any "evidence" or can be checked at all.

 

[Gunny]

Evidence? There's a corpus of scientific evidence. However if you refuse to accept it then fair enough, you don't have to and I wouldn't ask you to.

Any scientific theory has to have evidence or it's not a theory. Read about Lamarck if you don't understand what I mean.

Why is evolution an absurdity?

Let's clarify some terms .... "evolution" vs "the theory of evolution" and it's theory of origin. To which do you refer?

Regardless what Lamarck says, there are at least a couple of scientific theories based on theoretical evidence, not REAL evidence.

 

[Alucard]

Why is evolution an absurdity?

I didnt say it was.... DARWIN DID!...

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (Darwin 1872)

 

[Diuretic]

You forgot the denial that it amounts to the same thing.

Why are you both so insistent that people who have no religion do in fact have a religion and that religion is called something you want it to be called?

Can't you accept that the features of religious belief are faith and dogma? I mean, be happy that you have faith and dogma to cling to. Why concern yourselves with anything outside that? Is your faith so weak that you have to believe in a fairy tale about human development, denying the evidence of science? Are your beliefs so literal, so fundamental that you absolutely refuse to believe that the Old Testament might have been written for heuristical interpretation? If you want to believe that God fashioned humans from clay and a bone then fine, go with it but don't point your fundie fingers at those who have a different view and who are interested in trying to understand a different view of how humans came to be where we are?

Why not do something different? Read something other than your fundie texts and websites. It's a long and difficult read but Pierre Teilhard de Chardin grappled with this and was in trouble with the Vatican for so doing but later, posthumously, was found to be perhaps able to knit together the scientific evidence with the theological interpretation. His book, "The Phenomenon of Man", is a book of struggle. His intellect and his faith struggled inside him but he produced something that even swayed those paragons of dogma in Rome.

Or not. It's up to you. But spare us the smugness. You have ever right to believe what you wish. But if you attack me for accepting science and refusing to accept fundamental dogma then I hope you don't mind if I defend my right to think how I wish.

Remember who started poking first. Don't whine later.

 

[Diuretic]

I didnt say it was.... DARWIN DID!...

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (Darwin 1872)

Darwin was a religious man. From memory his father was a man of the cloth. I don't remember reading where Darwin canned the idea of God. I don't remember reading anywhere that Darwin claimed that his theory of evolution meant that God didn't exist.

And don't forget that while Darwin posited his theory of evolution he knew nothing about Mendel's work on genetics. Darwin's great gift to us was in suggesting the idea of natural selection and hence evolution. He didn't have all the answers, no scientist does, but they contribute to the sum total of human knowledge. And we move forward. Darwin gave us an idea. He did this in the 19th century. Don't look but it's the 21st Century now. Things are ticking along in science.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Science has Dogma as well. But we are not talking about that, your just adding it because you can't sustain the claim that one CAN and does believe in science, making it a "Belief".

Do keep changing the parameters in an effort to find traction for your claim.

Ohh I believe in God and I believe in Science as well. They are not in any way shape or form exclusive of each other.

 

[ReillyT]

I didnt say it was.... DARWIN DID!...

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (Darwin 1872)

You neglected the rest of the quote...

…If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

 

[Gunny]

Why are you both so insistent that people who have no religion do in fact have a religion and that religion is called something you want it to be called?

Can't you accept that the features of religious belief are faith and dogma? I mean, be happy that you have faith and dogma to cling to. Why concern yourselves with anything outside that? Is your faith so weak that you have to believe in a fairy tale about human development, denying the evidence of science? Are your beliefs so literal, so fundamental that you absolutely refuse to believe that the Old Testament might have been written for heuristical interpretation? If you want to believe that God fashioned humans from clay and a bone then fine, go with it but don't point your fundie fingers at those who have a different view and who are interested in trying to understand a different view of how humans came to be where we are?

Why not do something different? Read something other than your fundie texts and websites. It's a long and difficult read but Pierre Teilhard de Chardin grappled with this and was in trouble with the Vatican for so doing but later, posthumously, was found to be perhaps able to knit together the scientific evidence with the theological interpretation. His book, "The Phenomenon of Man", is a book of struggle. His intellect and his faith struggled inside him but he produced something that even swayed those paragons of dogma in Rome.

Or not. It's up to you. But spare us the smugness. You have ever right to believe what you wish. But if you attack me for accepting science and refusing to accept fundamental dogma then I hope you don't mind if I defend my right to think how I wish.

Remember who started poking first. Don't whine later.

I do not necessarily consider those who don't believe what I do to still have a religion. I have stated that what they believe is no less a belief than the religious person's. In that regard, the belief equates to the same thing. But you can label it whatever you want.

Taken a step further, addressing only those where the shoe fits, ANYONE who is so extreme in their anit-religous philosophy that they are intolerant of those who are religious, and speak in insulting and demeaning terms to them, are no better than what they claim to be railing against. I will further add that when one is so extreme as to hold such a belief, I find it hard to differentiate between their hate and intolerance and the hate and intolerance of religious extremists.

Second, I have denied no evidence of science. I refuse to accept contrived evidence as factual evidence. BIG difference.

Lastly, I am not and did not attack you. Nor have I attempted to push any religion on you. I responded to YOUR statement in a reasonable manner, and expected a response in kind.

 

[Alucard]

Darwin was a religious man. From memory his father was a man of the cloth. I don't remember reading where Darwin canned the idea of God. I don't remember reading anywhere that Darwin claimed that his theory of evolution meant that God didn't exist.

And don't forget that while Darwin posited his theory of evolution he knew nothing about Mendel's work on genetics. Darwin's great gift to us was in suggesting the idea of natural selection and hence evolution. He didn't have all the answers, no scientist does, but they contribute to the sum total of human knowledge. And we move forward. Darwin gave us an idea. He did this in the 19th century. Don't look but it's the 21st Century now. Things are ticking along in science.

I agree... But I think where we will disagree is where Science has taken us in the 21st century... I see an increasing likelyhood of creation by a supreme being due to scientific research proving other theories wrong and supporting the "THEORY OF CREATION"...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I agree... But I think where we will disagree is where Science has taken us in the 21st century... I see an increasing likelyhood of creation by a supreme being due to scientific research proving other theories wrong and supporting the "THEORY OF CREATION"...

Your delusional. The very idea that one can prove God Exists is crazy. It defeats the entire premise of religion and faith. And further a believer is not supposed to be searching for ways to prove God exists to begin with.

 

[Shogun]

I've never seen you disagree with any of those people.
Lmao....guess that means you won't be taking the challenge then, hey?

RGS was rather tenacious with Gunny in this thread.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=604884#post604884

 

[Shogun]

1. TEMPERANCE. Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation.

2. SILENCE. Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation.

3. ORDER. Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time.

4. RESOLUTION. Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve.

5. FRUGALITY. Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e., waste nothing.

6. INDUSTRY. Lose no time; be always employ'd in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions.

7. SINCERITY. Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly.

8. JUSTICE. Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty.

9. MODERATION. Avoid extreams; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.

10. CLEANLINESS. Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, cloaths, or habitation.

11. TRANQUILLITY. Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.

12. CHASTITY. Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dulness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another's peace or reputation.

13. HUMILITY. Imitate Jesus and Socrates.

It may be well my posterity should be informed that to this little artifice, with the blessing of God, their ancestor ow'd the constant felicity of his life, down to his 79th year, in which this is written. What reverses may attend the remainder is in the hand of Providence; but, if they arrive, the reflection on past happiness enjoy'd ought to help his bearing them with more resignation. To Temperance he ascribes his long-continued health, and what is still left to him of a good constitution; to Industry and Frugality, the early easiness of his circumstances and acquisition of his fortune, with all that knowledge that enabled him to be a useful citizen, and obtained for him some degree of reputation among the learned; to Sincerity and Justice, the confidence of his country, and the honorable employs it conferred upon him; and to the joint influence of the whole mass of the virtues, even in the imperfect state he was able to acquire them, all that evenness of temper, and that cheerfulness in conversation, which makes his company still sought for, and agreeable even to his younger acquaintance. I hope, therefore, that some of my descendants may follow the example and reap the benefit.

It will be remark'd that, tho' my scheme was not wholly without religion, there was in it no mark of any of the distingishing tenets of any particular sect. I had purposely avoided them; for, being fully persuaded of the utility and excellency of my method, and that it might be serviceable to people in all religions, and intending some time or other to publish it, I would not have any thing in it that should prejudice any one, of any sect, against it. I purposed writing a little comment on each virtue, in which I would have shown the advantages of possessing it, and the mischiefs attending its opposite vice; and I should have called my book THE ART OF VIRTUE, because it would have shown the means and manner of obtaining virtue, which would have distinguished it from the mere exhortation to be good, that does not instruct and indicate the means, but is like the apostle's man of verbal charity, who only without showing to the naked and hungry how or where they might get clothes or victuals, exhorted them to be fed and clothed. -- James ii. 15, 16.

But it so happened that my intention of writing and publishing this comment was never fulfilled. I did, indeed, from time to time, put down short hints of the sentiments, reasonings, etc., to be made use of in it, some of which I have still by me; but the necessary close attention to private business in the earlier part of thy life, and public business since, have occasioned my postponing it; for, it being connected in my mind with a great and extensive project, that required the whole man to execute, and which an unforeseen succession of employs prevented my attending to, it has hitherto remain'd unfinish'd.

In this piece it was my design to explain and enforce this doctrine, that vicious actions are not hurtful because they are forbidden, but forbidden because they are hurtful, the nature of man alone considered; that it was, therefore, every one's interest to be virtuous who wish'd to be happy even in this world; and I should, from this circumstance (there being always in the world a number of rich merchants, nobility, states, and princes, who have need of honest instruments for the management of their affairs, and such being so rare), have endeavored to convince young persons that no qualities were so likely to make a poor man's fortune as those of probity and integrity.

My list of virtues contain'd at first but twelve; but a Quaker friend having kindly informed me that I was generally thought proud; that my pride show'd itself frequently in conversation; that I was not content with being in the right when discussing any point, but was overbearing, and rather insolent, of which he convinc'd me by mentioning several instances; I determined endeavouring to cure myself, if I could, of this vice or folly among the rest, and I added Humility to my list) giving an extensive meaning to the word.

I cannot boast of much success in acquiring the reality of this virtue, but I had a good deal with regard to the appearance of it. I made it a rule to forbear all direct contradiction to the sentiments of others, and all positive assertion of my own. I even forbid myself, agreeably to the old laws of our Junto, the use of every word or expression in the language that imported a fix'd opinion, such as certainly, undoubtedly, etc., and I adopted, instead of them, I conceive, I apprehend, or I imagine a thing to be so or so; or it so appears to me at present. When another asserted something that I thought an error, I deny'd myself the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly, and of showing immediately some absurdity in his proposition; and in answering I began by observing that in certain cases or circumstances his opinion would be right, but in the present case there appear'd or seem'd to me some difference, etc. I soon found the advantage of this change in my manner; the conversations I engag'd in went on more pleasantly. The modest way in which I propos'd my opinions procur'd them a readier reception and less contradiction; I had less mortification when I was found to be in the wrong, and I more easily prevail'd with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I happened to be in the right.

And this mode, which I at first put on with some violence to natural inclination, became at length so easy, and so habitual to me, that perhaps for these fifty years past no one has ever heard a dogmatical expression escape me. And to this habit (after my character of integrity) I think it principally owing that I had early so much weight with my fellow-citizens when I proposed new institutions, or alterations in the old, and so much influence in public councils when I became a member; for I was but a bad speaker, never eloquent, subject to much hesitation in my choice of words, hardly correct in language, and yet I generally carried my points

In reality, there is, perhaps, no one of our natural passions so hard to subdue as pride. Disguise it, struggle with it, beat it down, stifle it, mortify it as much as one pleases, it is still alive, and will every now and then peep out and show itself; you will see it, perhaps, often in this history; for, even if I could conceive that I had compleatly overcome it, I should probably be proud of my humility.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/lives/franklin/chapt8/



The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin
http://www.earlyamerica.com/lives/franklin/chapt1/