0
   

The Problem of Religious Philosophy

 
 
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 10:42 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
That humanity seems to have a general need for religion does not mean that we can generalize about all religious people, especially in the way you have.

You suggest a new, more realistic myth, yet religion changes all of the time; religion is constantly evolving to meet the needs of practitioners. Some tradition may not meet your particular needs; that's fine, find another tradition, or maybe you have no need for any tradition. But to generalize that all religious traditions should be replaced with something more "realistic" is to have absolutely no sensitivity regarding the value of faith traditions to other people around you.



I think you are confusing something common to most would be intellectual issues with something particular to religious belief. The bottom line is that most people could not give a good account, to your rational standards, as to why they vote Democrat (or what have you). To expect people who do not even understand their politics to a reasonable degree to understand their religion to a reasonable degree is silly.

So what? Most people do not care about being reasonable with regards to religion. These failings do not translate to a total failure of rationality in religion as a whole.


Didymos Thomas,Smile

Humanity, your term, is a generality. The bible does not change, and it frightens me that someone whom believes in Adam and Eve, the devil, miracles, evil deeds as in the supernatural sense, as an offense to god or absurdities llike the end times just might gain political power and have their finger on the ****on. Mythology is as old perhaps as humanity itself, it is a natural response to wonder to create a story which informs its people of the nature of reality, some religions are sadly not up to it, they misinform and frighten children. I really do not give a dam about whether the religious man knows what he is doing. What I object to is his unwillingness to be open and honest in his dialogue while attempting to convince others that his babbling is truth.

Let those who make proclamations back them up with the rational for how they got there, let them be held accountable like everyone else. Stupidity is a poor excuse, especially when it wants to lead. If people do not care to be reasonable about there faith as you have said, isn't it a tad insane to take it to a philosophy forum, and expected to be given protection in the stituation. Just as people nolonger believe in the Roman pantheon of the gods, so to it is time to place christianity on the same shelf. "To expect people who do not even understand their politics to a reasonable degree to understand their religion to a reasonable degree is just silly" I could not have said it better myself, ignorance is bliss. Amen!

For some reason the system will not allow me to write the word ****on in the above, go figure?---see small stars above---divine intervention??? Why I will have to swing that rats ass over my head at midnight in the church yard to straighten this thing out.
0 Replies
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 11:16 am
@NeitherExtreme,
NeitherExtreme wrote:
What would you all say to someone who had an experience, or experiences, that led them to conclude "rationally" that something spritual exists beyond realm of our normal empircal understandings?
If a personal experience is widely divergent from what our collective experience validates as possible, then the rational reaction is NOT to draw this conclusion. It may be rational to believe what you have witnessed is true (insofar as you consider your senses and wits reliable), but how is it rational to take a single individual's experience and revamp our entire understanding of existence and reality?

The rational response would be to conclude that your experience is true and is somehow consistent with the universe we've grown to experience and understand.

It would be IRRATIONAL to extrapolate metaphysical truths and universals based on uncorroborated individual experiences, and it opens the door to every crazy person's solipsism becoming an equally valid way of looking at existence.

Quote:
Personally, I think that if you would immediately judge him to be irrational without weighing the situation unbiasedly... that would be materialistic dogma.
What's dogmatic there? What does "materialism" have to do with judgements of rationality or irrationality, which are non-material? Rationality versus irrationality, in the end, only presume logical trains of thought -- which is not amenable to any materialistic judgement.

Quote:
If you go into a situation already assuming that your beliefs about the nature of the universe are so well grounded in reality that they can not be challanged, then you can't blame someone else for doing the same thing.
And if you go into a situation always willing to reinvent fundamental truths about the universe based on brief (however meaningful) experiences, then you have chaos -- you lose any kind of backbone for understanding reality, and your understanding of reality can sway and buckle under every experience you have. You need to have confidence in something fundamental (even if it's just the reliability of your senses) in order to put your life's experiences in the context of one another.

Quote:
As an aside, I want to thank Aedes for (I believe) attempting giving the "religious" a fair shot. There are a lot of unblinkingly dogmatic religious folks out there, and too ofthen the seem to have the loudest voices. It's nice when people can look past some of that...
It's not even about giving the religious a fair shot as much as giving them credit for being just as diverse a body of humans as the non-religious. If even within formal philosophical writing the religious can go from highly rational (Aquinas) to highly irrational (Kierkegaard), and the non-religious can go from the highly rational (Spinoza or Hume) to the highly irrational (Sartre), then how can we stereotype either group??
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 12:14 pm
@de Silentio,
1) There are hundreds of mystic/religious traditions that have been around for thousands of years, they must provide practitioners with something. To imply that a practitioner is just one of the sheeple allowing herself to be brainwashed by some theocratic power clearinghouse is silly. No doubt that there are those people and no doubt there are those theocratic systems, but just like with governments, if they are not metting the needs of the people they will be overthrown and have been.

2) Saying religious people are not rational and that whatever religious method of knowledge creation they use is irrational is awfully elitist and really doesn't do anything aside from showing that you aren't really all that secure in your own method of knowledge creation. Any person who is truely seeking knowledge would be smart to use all methods at their disposal to do so. Mystic/Religious traditions have specific methods by which a person "converts", (proves to themsleves something is true and decides to apply their will in choosing to follow). They also often have non-science threatening methods to create knowledge. These methods are normally not secret, its simply that others scoff at them because these methods do not conform to the presupposed rationality that they have already been converted to. One day if you really want to prove to yourselves that a religious rational is bogus, make a sincere attempt to find knowledge by that method.

3)
Quote:
If people do not care to be reasonable about there faith as you have said, isn't it a tad insane to take it to a philosophy forum, and expected to be given protection in the stituation.


Really what is philosophy aside from a meta-conversation seeking knowledge, backing up statement in a manner that counters how that statement was obtained is pointless. To be posting in the religious section of the philosophy forum would probably require a willingness to post using methods that apply to religion, or at the very least a tolerance for those who are, without railing myopic elitism based on only one system of knowledge creation.

on and on and on
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 01:18 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead wrote:
1) There are hundreds of mystic/religious traditions that have been around for thousands of years, they must provide practitioners with something. To imply that a practitioner is just one of the sheeple allowing herself to be brainwashed by some theocratic power clearinghouse is silly. No doubt that there are those people and no doubt there are those theocratic systems, but just like with governments, if they are not metting the needs of the people they will be overthrown and have been.

2) Saying religious people are not rational and that whatever religious method of knowledge creation they use is irrational is awfully elitist and really doesn't do anything aside from showing that you aren't really all that secure in your own method of knowledge creation. Any person who is truely seeking knowledge would be smart to use all methods at their disposal to do so. Mystic/Religious traditions have specific methods by which a person "converts", (proves to themsleves something is true and decides to apply their will in choosing to follow). They also often have non-science threatening methods to create knowledge. These methods are normally not secret, its simply that others scoff at them because these methods do not conform to the presupposed rationality that they have already been converted to. One day if you really want to prove to yourselves that a religious rational is bogus, make a sincere attempt to find knowledge by that method.

3)

Really what is philosophy aside from a meta-conversation seeking knowledge, backing up statement in a manner that counters how that statement was obtained is pointless. To be posting in the religious section of the philosophy forum would probably require a willingness to post using methods that apply to religion, or at the very least a tolerance for those who are, without railing myopic elitism based on only one system of knowledge creation.

on and on and on


GoshisDead,Smile

I was raised in a christian culture so I am not entirely ignorant of its claims. Even some of my closest friends who claim belief not only have no reasonable explaination but ignore and fear the rise of new knowledge. As if they are expecting another Darwinian disaster, many close themselves off to enlightenment as if it is feared their foundation is at steak.These people not only do not have a rational bases for their belief but show no interest in a more mystical understanding, they want the literal interpretation made concrete, the sun did stand still.

The religious are the majority here, and so will have there way and no doubt I will be on my way. If these people have a means to understanding other than reason then let them share it, I do not believe this mode of understanding exists and like many intellectual frauds they huddle for safety in obsurity, share this mode of understanding which is not reason, give it a name more substantial then faith., I am all ears. I see their belief as an alternative reality, one considerably more pleasant then my own, if there was anyway to make their stand sound reasonable I would love to be there, if this requirement is not available than I might just as well make something up and try to believe it. Reality is harsh, christianity, the christian, it is not really the way of a braveheart.
LogicOnFire
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 01:55 pm
@boagie,
I for one, and I'm sure there are others like me, enjoy discussing difficult issues concerning my beliefs. I am a Christian and I use logic and reason to arrive at the beliefs that I have. Sometimes I do have to throw my hands up in the air and say "I don't know" about certain issues. I don't think this diminishes the logical value of my belief system, it encourages me to continue thinking.
I believe that engaging in critical analysis of my beliefs will help me grow in knowledge and understanding.

Boagie,
Any time you have questions about Christianity and want a rational, thought out answer, give me a try. I enjoy discussing such things, and I'm honest enough to admit when I don't know something. I look forward to our discussions on this board.Smile

I think a lot of times the reason why some Christians fear new knowledge, specifically scientific knowledge, is because they have been taught to hold a certain belief that isn't necessarily grounded in the principle teachings of Christianity, and so when some knowledge comes around that opposes what they have been taught to believe, they fear that everything they believe is in jeopardy.

I believe all knowledge comes from God, whether it is scientific, philosophical, or from any other discipline of study. So knowledge will lead us to a better understanding of God, not turn us away from Him.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 04:10 pm
@de Silentio,
Quote:
Humanity, your term, is a generality.


Therefore, what? The general term humanity does not beg for hasty generalizations about humans.

Quote:
The bible does not change, and it frightens me that someone whom believes in Adam and Eve, the devil, miracles, evil deeds as in the supernatural sense, as an offense to god or absurdities llike the end times just might gain political power and have their finger on the ****on.


Actually, the Bible does change. But you should know that much. And sure, I am just as affraid of religious nut jobs in high places. However, that some religious people are X does not mean all religious people are X. We've had this debate before, if I recall.

Quote:
Mythology is as old perhaps as humanity itself, it is a natural response to wonder to create a story which informs its people of the nature of reality, some religions are sadly not up to it, they misinform and frighten children.


Some what? Mythologies? I doubt that. Mythologies vary from culture to culture and change over time to meet the demands of the culture, of the people who tell the mythologies.

Sure, some people use these mythologies to insight fear. Again, however, that some do this does not mean that all do. Nor does the corruption of mythologies (using them to insight fear, ect) mean that the mythologies themselves are any less valuable.

Quote:
I really do not give a dam about whether the religious man knows what he is doing. What I object to is his unwillingness to be open and honest in his dialogue while attempting to convince others that his babbling is truth.


I thought you objected to mythologies being "up to the task" of informing people "about the nature of their world and existence". Everyone should take issue with close mindedness, especially when the close minded prosletyze, even if the matter being discussed is not a religious subject.

Quote:
Let those who make proclamations back them up with the rational for how they got there, let them be held accountable like everyone else. Stupidity is a poor excuse, especially when it wants to lead. If people do not care to be reasonable about there faith as you have said, isn't it a tad insane to take it to a philosophy forum, and expected to be given protection in the stituation. Just as people nolonger believe in the Roman pantheon of the gods, so to it is time to place christianity on the same shelf. "To expect people who do not even understand their politics to a reasonable degree to understand their religion to a reasonable degree is just silly" I could not have said it better myself, ignorance is bliss. Amen!


The problem is that all you have done is sight the silliness of some Christians, and then concluded that all of Christianity is out dated, and needs to be retired. Sorry, but if you want to proclaim the virtue of reason, you could make use of the tool yourself and stop making absurd generalizations about a diverse group of people.

I probably share most of your criticisms with Christianity, especially the various popular fundamentalist strains. But it's high time you developed some sensitivity to the fact that not all Christians think the way you seem to think they do.
0 Replies
 
GoshisDead
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 04:22 pm
@de Silentio,
Ah so this is a Christian specific debate, get it now, the whole thread title threw me off. I'll retreat then as i was aiming my coments not on any specific tradition. I was just pointing out the hubris of assuming there was only one method through which knowledge can be created.
0 Replies
 
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 04:23 pm
@de Silentio,
I don't think this is a Christian specific thread. My last post was simply rooting out some silly biases held against Christianity, but the same can be said for any similar generalizations about any other faith tradition.
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 05:28 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
I don't think this is a Christian specific thread. My last post was simply rooting out some silly biases held against Christianity, but the same can be said for any similar generalizations about any other faith tradition.


Didymos,Smile

Not all mythologies insist on their fellowers believing the absurd, which the bible it literally stuffed with. Of course what is said does not apply to one and every christian, so then, the faith in its totality should not be held accountable---there is correlation here with the individual christian then. A mythology can be the most dangerous aspect of a culture or it greatest asset, most of the population at any given time do not have the ability to question their own said myth. Can you look at Islam today and not see the dangers for christianity, makes my blood run cold. All self proclaimed world religions have totalitarian ambitions with the acception of Buddhism, and in the middle east judasim is not a problem simply because it is not a world religion.

The insane mythology of Japan, with their emperor believed to be the direct decendent of the sun god--now there is a real rational faith. The mythology Hitler was in the process of forming, what we believe has power whether positive or negative. The fact that christianity tries to stand in the way of a rational education--think the creation museum, the church trying to deny biological evolution and the church invading the classroom. You say I am not rational, ain't that the pot calling the kettle black! Let me ask you a direct question, do you believe in miracles, as in by means of violating the laws of nature to be realised. At anyrate, no one would give a dam what christianity proclaims if it was not political, as a political animal it is fair game for all the hostility in the world. Now I know christianity is not going to go away in the near future, but people should be made aware of the dangers of mythologies [group thought if you like] certainly history tell us to, BEWARE!:eek:
0 Replies
 
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 07:38 pm
@de Silentio,
Quote:
Not all mythologies insist on their fellowers believing the absurd, which the bible it literally stuffed with.


First, we can read the Bible in many different ways. Literal readings tend to produce great absurdities; however, one need not read the text literally, and I argue that literal readings are necessarily misguided.

Second, a Christian might reject portions of the Bible. I, as a Christian, take serious issue with parts of traditional Christian canon.

Quote:
Can you look at Islam today and not see the dangers for christianity, makes my blood run cold. All self proclaimed world religions have totalitarian ambitions with the acception of Buddhism, and in the middle east judasim is not a problem simply because it is not a world religion.


Care to read some history, boagie? I do not need to look at Islam to see the dangers of poorly considered Christian doctrine - I recall the Crusades.

Once again, my objection (I'm getting tired of making this point, so let's see if you can wrap your head around it this time): that some Christians do X is hardly a reason to indict the whole of the tradition for X.

Quote:
The fact that christianity tries to stand in the way of a rational education--think the creation museum, the church trying to deny biological evolution and the church invading the classroom.


Yep, it's terrible that some Christians do X (stand in the way of education, ect). However, your claim that Christianity does such a thing is patently false.

Quote:
You say I am not rational, ain't that the pot calling the kettle black!


No, I never claimed you were not rational. You make the attempt to be rational, and often times, what you say is rational. Even rational beings can make irrational claims - which is what you have done in this thread.

Quote:
Let me ask you a direct question, do you believe in miracles, as in by means of violating the laws of nature to be realised.


No. Occurrences in the natural world cannot violate the natural world's laws.

Quote:
At anyrate, no one would give a dam what christianity proclaims if it was not political, as a political animal it is fair game for all the hostility in the world.


What do you mean "it"? Christianity? Again, you need to check up on your nouns. Christianity is not a "political animal", some Christian Churches are (ie, the Catholic Church).

Enough with the broad generalizations. You may not have noticed, but by making these silly generalizations you have made a great many unsupported negative claims about a great many people - myself included. Sorry, but I do not think a snake literally spoke to Adam and Eve. Sorry, but not all Christians are irrational fools simply because some are.

Quote:
Now I know christianity is not going to go away in the near future, but people should be made aware of the dangers of mythologies [group thought if you like] certainly history tell us to, BEWARE!


If you know enough about history to be weary of mythologies, you should also know enough about history to understand the value of those mythologies. You should know that it's the individuals who use the mythology for good or ill. Some use these traditions to cause great sorrow, others use these traditions to help people.
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 08:08 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos,

You do sound surprisinly rational but if Christianity is not responsible, this is an entity where only the individual is to be held accountable, not that which is his greatest influence. Would this reasoning apply to some one in the mafia, he belongs to the mafia but it is not the mafia that is to blame. Pick your own institution and see if it sounds reasonable. It seems to me that what is done in the name of Christianity Christianity should be responsible for. If it is individuals you are talking about where are these individuals when the church does something they do not approve of? It is group thought and I wonder how healthy said individual are in order to serve as checks and balances. I think it a fair question, many people are displease with Islam and wonder why the saner elements do not clean their own home. I am quite serious, for the way you make it sound, it would be impossible ever to hold the church accountable for anything----nice work if you can get it.
de budding
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2008 02:25 am
@boagie,
Boagie, isn't it fair to say that Christians already take your insisted initiative to change- or at least disassociate with, what they don't agree with in the church? A schism?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/ChristianityBranches.svg/600px-ChristianityBranches.svg.png


But I would find this example of changing/dynamic Christianity more irrational and unreasonable than a static Christianity. If based on divine past events and a god as set in his ways as the one I was taught of, then surely it should be a very certain and self assured religion, and unchanged as a result. Do the people who cause the schisms in the time line think they know better than God?

Dan
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2008 06:25 am
@de budding,
de budding,Smile

There is little doubt the church has a transitional history but in the context of today I know people calling themselves christians who defended actions like surpressing knowledge. In this forum when I protested the supression of information about the age of the Grand Canyon, tour guides are not allowed to state its geological age. The christians at this sight came to the defense of christianity even supporting this Grand absurdity, is the Grand Canyon really a result of the biblical great flood? I have heard no protest about christianities push of intelligent design in the science classrooms of the nation, it does not take much to realise that this is not science.

In my own experience I have had the experience of a longtime friend who had turned born again telling me he believed in a literal devil, with or without horns I do not know, this is a frighteningly absurd belief no doubt supported by his church. These things need to be addressed by other christians, but, that does not happen. Tell me free thinking christians, is the world really only six thousand years old?

I realise that those who chose to call themselves christians have the best intentions but, what is the old saying, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, christians need to be actively concerned with what is done and said in the name of christianity. This may seem naive because of the nature of this organism/organization if you like, it does not have just one head does it, is each and every individual then one of these heads, with a common body? "We are the borg, you will be absorbed, resistence is futile." Not up on your star trek? A sure way to disprove is analogy is to hear from free thinking christians in a public way protest things like the attempted usurping of the public school system.
de budding
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2008 08:14 am
@boagie,
Sorry I'm not up on Star trek Boagie .

Well we seem to be attacking the actions and strong beliefs of creationism/I.D, fundamentalist and related evangelisms (And I fully agree with your above post). The only way I got over the stupidity and brute force of the mass ignorance these branches of Christianity invoke was to learn to watch some Ted Haggard or Hovind and laugh instead of bleeding blood out my ears.

In Britain these 'Fundies' don't have an impact on science and in Cambridge it is laughable to attempt to preach Christianity on the street.
I recall a gentleman in the Cambridge 'Grafton Centre' (a shopping mall) preaching some Intelligent Design via a slideshow. Within minuets a horde of students (there's plenty of students) had basically harassed the man into leaving. I don't want to be a hypocrite or simply sound cruel, but I found solace in the actions of the students.

My question would be- if we are indeed talking about the actions of these Christian groups and as you said, if their path to heaven is merely a path to hell lined with good intentions. What is to be done to protect the academic and intellectual institutions from such forces as I.D and Creationism? And what can I do to protect my sanity? As I think you would agree, debate and other academic approaches don't work with matters of religious faith.

Sorry if I'm off topic, misinformed or offensive- I try my hardest Very Happy.

Dan.
LogicOnFire
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2008 08:34 am
@boagie,
Boagie,

The 6,000 year old earth is one of those things I mentioned earlier about some folks are taught to believe something that the Bible doesn't say.

The Bible says "In the beginning (word literally means "eternity past") God created the heavens and the earth"

The "6 days of creation" is a metaphor for the institution of the work week (work 6 days, rest on the 7th)

And concerning the genealogies in Genesis 5, 10, and 11, the word "begat" in the King James Bible, (other translations say "became the father of") literally means "became the ancestor of" - so there are generational gaps between the names listed in some cases.

Anyone who suggests they have a firm date of anything that happened before Genesis 12 is uninformed.


I am very concerned about many things that are done in the name of Christianity. I get furious with people that act in an extremely ungodly manner and then say that it is in the name of Christ that they do it. Also when people make dogmatic claims about things they don't have a clue about it irritates me, and I think "no wonder some think all Christians are idiots." By the way, many media outlets love to find these nut jobs and make a spectacle of them to feed that idea.

I think I'm in good company with these frustrations. In the gospels, Jesus never gets angry with non-believers behaving badly, or for having messed up views. But He hammered the religious people who made a mockery of their faith by being hypocritical and for enforcing teachings that were opposed to the Bible.
0 Replies
 
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2008 08:53 am
@de budding,
de budding,Smile

:)Actually it does not sound like you and I have a problem, I don't really have anything against christians, just some of the things they do. It is a bit like ones nationalism, if you criticize your country or nation does that mean your unpatriotic or that you are a patriot? It should be I think christians themselves who do this, if it comes from the outside people have a tendency of loseing their ears. I cannot even imagine having to suffer the pains of having something I value highly violated by supposed peers. The only thing that can be done to protect the intrigity of christianity is if christians insist it be accountable, as it stands that is not happening. As things stand, the academic world is at the wall, but it does need the support of more christians. your post is not at all offensive and I do hope as much for my own. James
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2008 06:14 pm
@boagie,
LogicOnFire,

It is christians like you that should be the guardians of the intrigity of christianity, if there is no end to the interpretations of the bible I really do not know why it has not already lost its credibility. Out of these simplier yet more distrubing interpretations, comes truely disturbing actions. I hope for your sake as well as mine own that christians being standing up to tell the church, no you cannot do this in my name, in our name, or in the name of the church. When and if that happens, the layperson may be less fearful of the mentality of the church.
0 Replies
 
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2008 06:42 pm
@de Silentio,
Quote:
You do sound surprisinly rational but if Christianity is not responsible, this is an entity where only the individual is to be held accountable, not that which is his greatest influence.


You continue to make the mistaken of thinking Christianity is one entity. The label Christianity applies to a group that is too broad to be considered as one entity.

Take, for instance, the fact that Christians, in the name of Christianity (their understanding of it), kill other Christians.

Quote:
Would this reasoning apply to some one in the mafia, he belongs to the mafia but it is not the mafia that is to blame.


Depends upon the context. The mafia refers to illegal business. What does Christianity refer to? Faith traditions which trace their heritage back to a particular teacher - Jesus of Nazareth.

Quote:
It seems to me that what is done in the name of Christianity Christianity should be responsible for.


You will have a tough time arguing that Protestants are responsible for the Crusades.

Quote:
If it is individuals you are talking about where are these individuals when the church does something they do not approve of?


Not all Christians belong to a church. Myself, for example. As a Christian, I do not associate with a Church. I prefer my closet.

Quote:
It is group thought and I wonder how healthy said individual are in order to serve as checks and balances.


In many cases, no such balance exists. In many cases, people are as sheep following whatever they are told, and believing whatever they are told. Terrible shame. However, this is not inherent in Christianity.

Quote:
I think it a fair question, many people are displease with Islam and wonder why the saner elements do not clean their own home. I am quite serious, for the way you make it sound, it would be impossible ever to hold the church accountable for anything----nice work if you can get it.


Again, Islam is a broad label. There are radical Muslims, and sane Muslims. Are the sane Muslims responsible for the radical Muslims calling themselves Muslim? Hardly.

The Church can and should be held accountable. The Catholic Church should be held accountable for years of child abuse, for example. As an institution, the abuse was ignored. However, the Episcopal Church should not be responsible for the failings of the Catholic Church.

Quote:
I have heard no protest about christianities push of intelligent design in the science classrooms of the nation, it does not take much to realise that this is not science.


Then you have not asked. The anti-intellectual tendencies of some Christians is a shame. But not all Christians share that tendency. Hey, how ya doing'?

Quote:
These things need to be addressed by other christians, but, that does not happen. Tell me free thinking christians, is the world really only six thousand years old?


Of course not, get a grip Boagie. These things are addressed by other Christians. Even on these forums, myself and others have addressed traditional, and silly, doctrines of Christemdom.

Quote:
A sure way to disprove is analogy is to hear from free thinking christians in a public way protest things like the attempted usurping of the public school system.


Because, you know, all Christians think the Earth is 6,000 years old, and that evolution is a conspiracy theory presented by scientists to erode people's faith in God.

If Christians matched your notion of what it is to be a Christian, Jerry Falwell would be the Pope.

It's easy to attack the most radical elements of a group. Equating the most radical elements of Christianity with all of Christianity is a fallacy - one that should not be commited on a philosophy forum where we would hope users would know better.
boagie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Apr, 2008 07:46 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos,Smile

:)All you've really done is paint a picture of a monstrosity, something with no correlation of its parts, obsurity is a defense posture, not unknown to man or beast. Perhaps this is not an unusual characteristic of institutions, but I shall have to think on that a bit. You have been patient, for that I thank you. boagie
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Apr, 2008 01:43 am
@de Silentio,
Quote:
All you've really done is paint a picture of a monstrosity, something with no correlation of its parts, obsurity is a defense posture, not unknown to man or beast.


I haven't painted a picture, I've criticized your caricature because you present your caricature as a portrait.

I imagine 'obsurity' is a typo, of obscurity? If so, I ask where my words have obscured anything. I readily admit to rampant problems within Christianity. My only point has been that your criticisms of Christianity suffer from the fallacy of composition.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/24/2022 at 09:10:27