| Author | Message | ||
     the_apostolic_truth_ministries Junior Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 50 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.208.12.98 |
You may pick your favorite or discuss them all. 1. Is Religious Faith Intellectual Dishonesty? a. "Religious Faith is believing in something without or contrary to the evidence at hand. Intellectual dishonesty is proclaiming something as truth that you know you have no evidence for and trying to persuade others that it is 'eternal truth' when is is nothing but a 'guess' or at best, a 'hope'." (That is your own definition, by the way). Answer: Yes, absolutely. Ever hear of the Nebraska man? 2. The Supernatural, does it really exist? Where is the evidence? Answer: Yes. Ever hear of the Devil’s Triangle? 3. The Bible, History Book or Fictional Account? Answer: The Bible is so much more than just a great history book. It is also a great book of poetry. It is a great song book. It contains a great deal of . . . Oh no . . . Not that . . . OOOH! Yes, it contains a great deal of science. In fact, it is the beginning of science as we know it. 4. If there is a god, what makes one god or group of gods more compelling than others? Why believe that Jehovah is god rather than Ra, Zeus, or any of the thousands of gods human beings worship or have worshiped? Answer: That is an interesting question given you pure hatred of Jehovah while embrace the others you named. Is it God you object to? Or His moral code? 5. Religion as Social Control social control –noun 1. Sociology. the enforcement of conformity by society upon its members, either by law or by social pressure. 2. the influence of any element in social life working to maintain the pattern of such life. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. WordNet - Cite This Source social control noun control exerted (actively or passively) by group action That, too, is your definition. Answer: Yes, your religion does view itself as having the exclusive right to social control. “Also the Postulate of Repetition, repeat something often enough and it becomes accepted as true.” I will throw in one extra, in case you would like to discuss it. Answer: Ever hear of the Nebraska man? | ||
| ba2 New member Username: ba2 Post Number: 14 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 165.189.17.206 |
I have heard of the Nebraska Man and I am tired of the lies of the creationists. I heard about it in church and looked up the facts myself. Much to do about nothing. As creationists tell the story, evolutionists used one tooth to build an entire species of primitive man. The true story is much more complex. The imaginative drawing of Nebraska Man to which creationists invariably refer was the work of an illustrator collaborating with the scientist Grafton Elliot Smith, and was done for a British popular magazine, not for a scientific publication. Few if any other scientists claimed Nebraska Man was a human ancestor. If you care to look at the truth, read a more complete story here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html | ||
| trainedobserver Junior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 36 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.47 |
1. Do you have a point to make about intellectual dishonesty? Make it. Don't count on me to read your mind. See Pithdown Man. 2. Do you mean the Bermuda triangle? I'm surprised you didn't cite Bigfoot or the tooth fairy. There is nothing to either one. They both have been quite throughly debunked as pseudoscientific nonsense. 3. The Bible is neither a history book or a science book. It contains no mention of anything resembling the scientific method whatsoever. Rather, quite to the contrary, it promotes revealed knowledge over scientific knowledge. It promotes blind trust in god over exercising any trust in 'the flesh' (which includes that blob of gray matter in our skulls) Numerous references are available but I'm sure you are already familiar with them as is most any Christian. 4. "That is an interesting question given you pure hatred of Jehovah while embrace the others you named. Is it God you object to? Or His moral code?" Hate? Embrace? You have me mistaken for someone else obviously. What do your questions (in your answer yet) have to do with how to choose the right god from the barrel o' gods? A god's moral code seems to be another subject entirely unless you use that as a criteria. Certainly baby killers are low on my list of things to worship. 5. "Yes, your religion does view itself as having the exclusive right to social control. " That makes no sense whatsoever. You do have me confused with someone else. First, I have no religion. Religion involves worship, ritual, and so forth. Atheism is a negative. The absence of belief in a god or gods cannot be considered a religion. Secular Humanism is not a religion by virtue of the total lack of the concept of worship, ritual, or any of the other trappings of religion. It is a philosophy if anything. And second, please cite some reference for "...view itself as having the exclusive right to social control." You just made that up. You don't have a leg to stand on there. Nebraska man. The pig tooth you mean? No need to repeat yourself. Just make your point and let's not play 20 questions with each other. The story of the Nebraska Man and the Piltdown Man both demonstrate the self-correcting nature of science and its ability to adjust as new evidence becomes available. Religion has neither facility. Now, just what was your point exactly? | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 52 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.208.12.98 |
Did someone mention Lucie? | ||
| trainedobserver Junior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 41 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.59 |
atm, What is your point? What does it have to do with Religious Faith as Intellectual Dishonesty. Do I have to carry on both sides of this conversation? | ||
| yaakov2 Junior Member Username: yaakov2 Post Number: 29 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.192.99.67 |
Hello TO Is Religious Faith Intellectual Dishonesty? According to Wikipedia,
According to a blog named dashes.com,
Both definitions of intellectual dishonesty require a person to advocate a position that they themselves know to be false. To me it is a no-brainer that the answer to your question is NO. Just about everyone thinks their beliefs are correct. Though other people may disagree with a person’s beliefs, that does not meet the definition of intellectual dishonesty on the part of the person that holds those beliefs. The only time that I’ve seen intellectual dishonesty used here is when a person takes up a position that they don’t believe in, as a methodology to debating for their beliefs. A “devil’s advocate” argument, as it were. | ||
| trainedobserver Junior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 42 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.1 |
Y, What is faith? Isn't faith the accepting something without, or in spite of, proper evidence? Faith even frowns on requiring evidence, Jesus said it was better to believe without evidence. Therefore, the individual must commit an act of intellectual dishonesty in that he accepts as eternal truth something that by definition cannot be known as an ethernal truth. It's a hope. Not a truth. At least that is how the N.T. teaches folks about faith. You may have a different perspective. | ||
| trainedobserver Junior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 43 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.1 |
If religious faith were about "A Hope" rather than "A sure thing" the act of intellectual dishonesty wouldn't occur. | ||
| fatherofaking Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 76 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.88.202 |
our resident apostle seems reluctant to give up much information, so i thought some of you might want to know a little more. http://www.cultministry.angelcities.com/ | ||
| trainedobserver Junior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 45 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.1 |
It is possible but I find it unlikely that atm has 1 million dollars to give away. If not, then he is committing an act of intellectual dishonesty in his promise of this vast amount of money when he doesn't have it. atm, do you have $1,000,000. to award? $1,000,000.00 Dollars U.S. REWARD http://cultministry.angelcities.com/reward.html | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 60 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.208.12.98 |
come and get it! | ||
| bluewater2 New member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 10 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 |
Loser! | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 61 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.208.12.98 |
Mr. Trainedobserver: You need to work on your search engine! There are a dozen or so messageboards with my name on them. Several pentecostal churches also use my name. B ut my all time fav . . . is the pornographic site with my name on it. You don't make many friends when dealing with pentecostals. | ||
| fatherofaking Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 77 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.88.202 |
does that include this message board as well? are you saying that the one that used to sign their name rev.sandy DD is not you? | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 63 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.208.12.98 |
Mr. Trainedobserver: Can you surprise me in anyway? religion, a system of thought, feeling, and action that is shared by a group and that gives the members an object of devotion; a code of behavior by which individuals may judge the personal and social consequences of their actions; and a frame of reference by which individuals may relate to their group and their universe. Usually, religion concerns itself with that which transcends the known, the natural, or the expected; it is an acknowledgment of the extraordinary, the mysterious, and the supernatural. The religious consciousness generally recognizes a transcendent, sacred order and elaborates a technique to deal with the inexplicable or unpredictable elements of human experience in the world or beyond it. http://columbia.thefreedictionary.com/religion Your religion by the way is a religion, sorry. | ||
| yaakov2 Junior Member Username: yaakov2 Post Number: 30 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.192.99.67 |
trainedobserver What is faith? Isn't faith the accepting something without, or in spite of, proper evidence? What does a lack of evidence have to do with the definition of intellectual dishonesty? Again, the definition of intellectual dishonesty that I found on the web is “a person advocating a position that they themselves know to be false." Almost every poster on here advocates positions that they believe to be correct. Whether or not, they can prove their beliefs in a court room is a separate matter and has nothing to do with the definition of intellectual dishonesty. It is possible but I find it unlikely that atm has 1 million dollars to give away. If not, then he is committing an act of intellectual dishonesty in his promise of this vast amount of money when he doesn't have it. atm, do you have $1,000,000. to award? In this particular case, I would agree that atm probably doesn’t actually have this money or if he did, then he probably has no intention of paying it. Since he is advocating a position (i.e. paying the reward) that he knows to be false (he has no intention of paying it), then this meets the definition of intellectual dishonesty. I would go further and call this reward story, fraudulent. | ||
| yaakov2 Junior Member Username: yaakov2 Post Number: 31 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.192.99.67 |
Your religion by the way is a religion, sorry. Can anyone tell me the reason why some people want to label the absence of religion as being a religion? What does it matter? What is the importance of labeling atheism as being a religious belief? In my opinion, it is just silly. Labeling atheism as a religion makes as much sense as: - A person eating whatever they want, whenever they want, and labeling this random consumption as being a new restrictive diet. - A person having no interest in politics and never voting, and labeling their lack of participation as a new political party. | ||
| bluewater2 New member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 11 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 |
The only people who label atheism a religion are those that have shown that their religion doesn't work for them by their actions, (we know who that generally is), so they try to put that off on the atheists as well. I think they feel that labelling atheists as belonging to the atheist religion in some way hits a hot button with atheists. It is their way of "sticking it to them." I laugh at it. | ||
| trainedobserver Junior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 46 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.13 |
"come and get it!" Before I would attempt it, I would want to see proof that the funds are really available. Are they? | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 67 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.208.12.98 |
M(r)(s). yaakov2: Perhaps you need to plead your case to the dictionary. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 68 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.208.12.98 |
M(r)(s). bluewater2: Quoting: "The only people who label atheism a religion are those that have shown that their religion doesn't work for them by their actions." End quote. I have no idea if the authors of the dictionary held a working religion or not. Perhaps like above, you need to take your argument to the dictionary. | ||
| trainedobserver Junior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 47 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.13 |
religion, a system of thought, feeling, and action that is shared by a group and that gives the members an object of devotion; a code of behavior by which individuals may judge the personal and social consequences of their actions; and a frame of reference by which individuals may relate to their group and their universe. Usually, religion concerns itself with that which transcends the known, the natural, or the expected; it is an acknowledgment of the extraordinary, the mysterious, and the supernatural. The religious consciousness generally recognizes a transcendent, sacred order and elaborates a technique to deal with the inexplicable or unpredictable elements of human experience in the world or beyond it. You are mistaken. I really don't get the believers need in branding non-believers, their ideas, and organizations as 'religion'. It disregards the common use of the word as well as any dictionary you care to look at. 1. There are no objects of devotion. 2. No belief whatsoever in the supernatural, god or gods. 3. Secular Humanism does not recognize a transcendent, sacred order, or anything of the sort. Are you the one offering the million dollars or not? If yes, provide me some proof that it is available. You may contact me at religious_skeptic@bigfoot.com Now, if you are done playing word games ...come up with something that actually has something to do with the challenge I readily replied to. | ||
| trainedobserver Junior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 48 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.13 |
y, The bit you seem to miss about it is that it is the passing off something as _ethernal_divine_inalterable Truth (with a big T) that you actually have believed yourself (or say that you do) even though you have no evidence that what you are saying is true. It is as though the one exercising Religious Faith were a merchant. But instead of actually 'weighing' the goods on a calibrated scale in the back before he sells it to you, hes 'believes' that one hand full equals a half pound and use my hands. I present you with your order and tell you it is a pound and a half of whatever you paid for. Is it a pound and a half? Neither the merchant or the customer have no real assurance that it is but the merchant believes that a handful is a half a pound and tells you, "Yes, that is one pound and a half." Did you get cheated? How would you know? The merchant said something that he 'believed' for no good reason, but passes it off as though he has. That is telling someone something is true without actually knowing it is true for yourself. Faith requires that. The exercising of Religious Faith is an act of Intellectual Dishonesty. Like I said, "If" the believer would say, "I really don't know if this is true, I hope it is, do you want to hope it is too?" That would be honesty. | ||
| trainedobserver Junior Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 49 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.13 |
Answer: Yes, your religion does view itself as having the exclusive right to social control. If we ignore the usual 'your religion' misdirection, you have yet to provide any support for that statement. "Exclusive right to social control." You made that up so why don't you admit it and retract it. Like I said, I read the literature, which I think it is safe to say, you do not. I have never seen anything that would justify your statement. Point me to it. Otherwise we have some more dishonesty to deal with. It would appear from your behavior here that you are another disingenuous person masquerading as an 'apostle' for whatever reason. From what I've read so far you don't have anything to offer. | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 76 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.208.12.98 |
Mr. trainedobserver: Your religion does desire to controll all things exclusively. You claim to have read the literature, what literature? It is your religion that is trying to force gay marriage down our throats, not mine. It is your religion that has murdered millioms of babies under the disguise of 'choice.' Your religion has grown the constabulary to something my forefathers would never recognize. I have never and will never claim to be an apostle. That is purely fabrication on your part hoping to hide from the truth. | ||
| yaakov2 Junior Member Username: yaakov2 Post Number: 32 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.192.99.67 |
Trainedobserver I don’t know why we are having difficulty on this one point. I thought my points were clear, but you don’t seem to get it. You haven’t posted a disagreement with the definitions that I made of the phrase “intellectual dishonesty”, so I assume that you agree with it (a person advocating a position that they themselves know to be false). The bit you seem to miss about it is that it is the passing off something as _ethernal_divine_inalterable Truth (with a big T) that you actually have believed yourself (or say that you do) even though you have no evidence that what you are saying is true. The bit you are missing is that “missing evidence” has no relationship to the phrase “intellectual dishonesty” (ID). ID only applies to people that KNOW that they are speaking falsely about their own BELIEFS. It is as though the one exercising Religious Faith were a merchant. But instead of actually 'weighing' the goods on a calibrated scale in the back before he sells it to you, hes 'believes' that one hand full equals a half pound and use my hands. I present you with your order and tell you it is a pound and a half of whatever you paid for. Your analogy has two errors within it, instead of just one. Error#1 – The merchant BELIEVES that one hand full equals 0.5 pound, although he hasn’t verified it. Error#2 – The merchant believes he is selling 0.5 pound to a customer, but tells the customer it equals to 1.5 pounds. The first error is not ID. The merchant believes that one of his hands equals a measurement of 0.5 pounds. He is advocating a position that he believes is true. The second error is ID. The merchant believes that one of his hands equals 0.5 pounds, but tells the customer it is 3X as much. He is advocating a position that he knows is false. The first error is a circumstance of estimating. Instead of knowing the precise weight, he is giving an estimate that he believes to be reasonably correct. The precise weight could be more or less. The second error is fraud (or ID). He knows that he is charging far more than is actually being sold. That is telling someone something is true without actually knowing it is true for yourself. No. Not anymore than me saying that the first joint of my index finger is 1.25 inches long and telling you that is the truth. It is a reasonable estimate that I believe to be true. Like I said, "If" the believer would say, "I really don't know if this is true, I hope it is, do you want to hope it is too?" That would be honesty. Another honest statement would be “I can’t prove that this is true, but I believe it to be true. Do you want to believe it too?” | ||
| trainedobserver Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 54 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.15 |
dear atm, Like I said. You behave just another disingenuous theist. Otherwise you'd have provided some documentation on your ridiculous claims. I really couldn't care less about what you think or don't think about Secular Humanism. Reading your stuff, it is pretty clear to me that you aren't about truth or facts. Why would I should I bother continuing this conversation? Like I said, it is plain to see from your responses that you have nothing of any worth to offer. Who has time for people who won't be genuine? Not me. You can go play these games with your fellow theists. | ||
| trainedobserver Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 56 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.15 |
y, Well 'knowing' that you've believed something without proper evidence is 'knowing' that you have no idea if it is Truth or not. Agree? Passing it off as Eternal Truth when you 'know' it has not passed any reasonable persons requirements to qualify for even common everyday truth is being dishonest. Agree? Passing off something as true that you really have no way of knowing whether it is true or not. That is Intellectual Dishonesty any way you look at it. Knowing something is false and not knowing if something is true and claiming that it is true, is in effect for all practical purposes the same thing. True? | ||
| trainedobserver Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 57 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.15 |
Oh good grief. All numbers should be 1.5 pounds. My bad. The idea here is that the merchant has no idea whether the goods really weigh 1.5 pounds or not but he claims that he does. (dang word problems) | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 78 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.208.12.98 |
Mr. Trainedobserver: As the old saying goes "when one cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!" You may feel free to run. Next time don't start a conversation you can't handle. | ||
| trainedobserver Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 58 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.15 |
atm, "Next time don't start a conversation you can't handle." Well, when you learn to form a proper argument let me know. Anyone who uses 'the devils triangle' as an example of the supernatural isn't much of a worry. You're about as spiritual as a hangover man, who are you trying to kid? | ||
| the_apostolic_truth_ministries Member Username: the_apostolic_truth_ministries Post Number: 90 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 12.208.12.98 |
Mr. Trainedobserver: Again, thank you kindly for your suggestion. | ||
| yaakov2 Junior Member Username: yaakov2 Post Number: 33 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 24.242.68.167 |
TO (dang word problems) It was a mistake? LOL. I liked your analogy as written because it illustrated two different concepts. Did you agree with my assessment (of your analogy) of ID and non-ID? Well 'knowing' that you've believed something without proper evidence is 'knowing' that you have no idea if it is Truth or not. Agree? I sat and thought about this statement for a time and its applications to any opinion, not just religious beliefs. To me, the keystone of it is "proper evidence". You are again attempting to define "proper evidence" only as things that can be scientifically or physically measured. You are excluding philosophy, personal experiences, and emotions. Does most people have "proper evidence" when selecting a political candidate? A new diet? Their new stock investment? There are other measures of "evidence" that people accept and use other than just scientific evidence. Passing it off as Eternal Truth when you 'know' it has not passed any reasonable persons requirements to qualify for even common everyday truth is being dishonest. Agree? That's the second time you've used the phrase "Eternal Truth". It doesn't have any particular meaning to me within Judaism. Perhaps it means something to you with your Christian background that I'm not aware of. Paraphrasing you [Accepting a religious belief] when you 'know' it has not passed any reasonable persons requirements to qualify for even common everyday truth is being dishonest. I disagree. To accept a religious belief, each of us has already used our personal experiences, opinions, personal philosophy to determine its truthfulness. It's irrelevant what another person's beliefs are. Someone else's belief are not evidence to changing my beliefs. IMO, you so fixated on just the physical that you label everything else as automatically being false. Passing off something as true that you really have no way of knowing whether it is true or not. That is Intellectual Dishonesty any way you look at it. I disagree and have provided several examples. Here's another: I believe that Butter Pecan ice cream is the best ice cream in the world. I have no way to prove it, but maintain that belief. I also tell people that I believe that Butter Pecan ice cream is the best in the world and I think they would agree if they tried it. Is that ID? Knowing something is false and not knowing if something is true and claiming that it is true, is in effect for all practical purposes the same thing. True? False. Knowing something is false is completely different from not having scientific evidence to prove a belief. | ||
| bluewater2 New member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 16 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 |
"I also tell people that I believe that Butter Pecan ice cream is the best in the world and I think they would agree if they tried it. Is that ID?" It would be ID if the people didn't try it but disagreed anyway and just as ID if the person making the claim discounted the belief of the other after they tried it and said it wasn't the best. | ||
| fatherofaking Intermediate Member Username: fatherofaking Post Number: 101 Registered: 8-2005 Posted From: 71.161.88.202 |
i feel like i am the goose in a duck, duck, goose game. who shall i pick? let me see. i think i will run around the circle one more time. | ||
| trainedobserver Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 66 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.17 |
y, I disagree. We can agree to disagree. I don't know how to explain it any differently. Also, this is framed for "Religious Faith" and not other beliefs and situations. Eternal Truth is immutable divine knowledge ... god said, "[insert eternal truth here]." Proclaiming that X is god and Y is god's word based on your unconditional acceptance of those assertions is knowingly representing misrepresenting something. Call it what you will. It isn't a behavior we would endorse in any other human endeavor, why religion? | ||
| bluewater2 New member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 17 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 |
I think it makes good sense that if someone makes the claim that something is truthful, the best, or better, or even correct, that it be subjected to validation through testing and results. Isn't that just normal protacol? | ||
| rachelengland Member Username: rachelengland Post Number: 75 Registered: 5-2005 Posted From: 216.109.192.236 |
Sure it is normal protocol..but who gets to decide if it passes the test? Men who will always be limited by their knowledge or bias..R | ||
| trainedobserver Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 67 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.17 |
"I think it makes good sense that if someone makes the claim that something is truthful, the best, or better, or even correct, that it be subjected to validation through testing and results. Isn't that just normal protacol?" Except for religious claims for some unknown reason. Benny Hinn and the rest can claim to heal people and rake in the millions and they are accountable to no one. It isn't right. It isn't moral. It isn't good for anyone but the criminals running the scam. Yet, these predators will be defended by the very people they victimize. It is shameful and criminal. Oh, and more importantly, it •••••• me off to see people taken advantage by people they trust. | ||
| bluewater2 New member Username: bluewater2 Post Number: 21 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 75.42.171.14 |
"Sure it is normal protocol..but who gets to decide if it passes the test?" The tester for his or her self. And the tester's decision needs to be respected by the other. | ||
| yaakov2 Junior Member Username: yaakov2 Post Number: 37 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 66.192.99.67 |
Stating opinions without using scientific evidence is used in many endeavors, not just religious beliefs. TO, I think we beat this dead horse enough. I can agree to disagree. | ||
| trainedobserver Member Username: trainedobserver Post Number: 86 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 198.49.119.28 |
y, I am good with that. The horse is getting a bit mushy. Here is what I tell 'em, "You're trying to sell me "a hope" as a sure thing. Just try to sell it to me as a hope and avoid any dishonesty. Reaction? Balk, balk, and balk. | ||
| ihavesinned New member Username: ihavesinned Post Number: 16 Registered: 1-2006 Posted From: 64.122.1.158 |
"Can anyone tell me the reason why some people want to label the absence of religion as being a religion? What does it matter? What is the importance of labeling atheism as being a religious belief? " It is simply a way of writing off anything that might contradict biblical views as insignificant, unimportant, or idolatry. I have seen science in general and evolution in particular called a religion. If quantum mechanics was better understood by the public at large, it would probably be labeled a religion as well. Maybe relativity too... This tactic is used by christians on this boartd to make rational thinkers seem like deluded, obsessed fanatics, worshipping at the altar of a false god. Then they can be ignored. The problem with this tactic is the undeniable, tangible, concrete results that science yields. I know a devout christian who has been praying for a baby for several years. He finally turned to science for hormone therapy, and will probably call it a miracle when they finally concieve, and claim that his prayers were answered. The fact is, science produces results. Prayer, well, you just have to take somebody's word about that. Anything that might detract from a potential buyer's attention must be discreditted. This is why atheism ,science, humanism , etc. are labeled "religions" by some. You have to keep those collection plates full, and if science is producing all the miracles, that becomes difficult. |
