“The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost their power of reasoning.”
–Voltaire
[quote]lixy wrote:
Enlighten us then about this “extremist Islam”.
Because I sure never heard of any religion that privileges blood over actions.[/quote]
Here’s that hijack I was afraid of.
What religion do you consider Osama Bin Laden and his ilk to be? I highly doubt you want to be lumped into that group. That’s why I make a distinction.
I certainly don’t want to be associated with Hindus that practice Sati, I figured the same logic would apply for Muslims who don’t blow themselves up?
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
“The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost their power of reasoning.”
–Voltaire[/quote]
St. Thomas Aquinas - a far more profound & intelligent philosopher than Voltaire - would beg to differ. Faith and reason are not only compatible; they are also necessary to one another.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Agnosticism is a cop-out – as if there were any question as to the possibility of “knowing” God. Of course God is unknowable – isn’t this why such knowledge is more commonly referred to as having faith?
One either has faith in the existence of a higher power or one does not. If one questions the existence of god by taking the agnostic position one is by default an atheist. Having faith necessarily means that the position is unquestionable – hence not agnostic – or else it couldn’t be faith.[/quote]
Agnosticism is the only honest option. Anyone that claims to know for sure whether god exists or not is lying. Some days, I’m agnostic about god the way I’m agnostic about the flying spaghetti monster. I can’t prove it isn’t real, but I’m pretty sure it isn’t. Other days, I wake up and I can’t manage to lean either way. You could say I don’t have faith in either position. Saying that the only options are having faith there is a god or having faith there isn’t a god leaves out a whole host of other possibilities.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
“The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost their power of reasoning.”
–Voltaire
St. Thomas Aquinas - a far more profound & intelligent philosopher than Voltaire - would beg to differ. Faith and reason are not only compatible; they are also necessary to one another. [/quote]
Is faith nothing more than the hope that what you want to happen will through “Divine intervention” or because if it is meant to be it will???
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
St. Thomas Aquinas - a far more profound & intelligent philosopher than Voltaire - would beg to differ. Faith and reason are not only compatible; they are also necessary to one another. [/quote]
Faith is an impediment to reason. Thomas Aquinas was a terrible philosopher because he spent all his time creating poorly crafted arguments to support his faith. For my money, Socrates was the best followed closely by David Hume. Socrates because he proved that you can’t really know anything, and Hume because he proved that even if you did know something, it might not be true tomorrow.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
“The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost their power of reasoning.”
–Voltaire
St. Thomas Aquinas - a far more profound & intelligent philosopher than Voltaire - would beg to differ. Faith and reason are not only compatible; they are also necessary to one another. [/quote]
But religion added to reason will usually add odd variables which will likely not seem “reasonable” depending on belief.
Its like Creationism vs Darwinism. Or if your looking for a reasonable answer to 4+6, it helps if everyone is in agreement on the 4 & 6.
Traveller: God has been mighty good to your fields, Mr. Farmer.
Farmer: You should have seen how he treated them when I wasn’t around.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
You don’t know that God is not your coffee cup. What if he is? How would you know?
Explain how you can know God please.
Why can’t he be material on this earth, or immaterial off of it?
He/she’s fucking GOD. He/she/it can be whatever the fuck it wants to be. [/quote]
I hope God isn’t the bottom of my desk, lets just say he would be sticky if he was.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
lixy wrote:
Enlighten us then about this “extremist Islam”.
Because I sure never heard of any religion that privileges blood over actions.
Here’s that hijack I was afraid of.
What religion do you consider Osama Bin Laden and his ilk to be? I highly doubt you want to be lumped into that group. That’s why I make a distinction.
I certainly don’t want to be associated with Hindus that practice Sati, I figured the same logic would apply for Muslims who don’t blow themselves up?[/quote]
It doesn’t matter one tiny bit what I consider Osama’s religion to be. I have never heard of any religion where lineage trumps actions (well, maybe capitalism, but that’s another story).
Since times immemorial, religions grew by guaranteeing equality and ensuring the low-status casts that they are no different than the big shots in the eyes of God/deities. I don’t know that much about Ben Laden, but from accounts of people who met him firsthand, he doesn’t seem like the racist type. In fact, it is the whole “holy lineage” crap the Al-Sauds are pulling off that is partly to blame for his movement.
So please, make your case or retract your statement.
[quote]lixy wrote:
It doesn’t matter one tiny bit what I consider Osama’s religion to be. I have never heard of any religion where lineage trumps actions (well, maybe capitalism, but that’s another story).
Since times immemorial, religions grew by guaranteeing equality and ensuring the low-status casts that they are no different than the big shots in the eyes of God/deities. I don’t know that much about Ben Laden, but from accounts of people who met him firsthand, he doesn’t seem like the racist type. In fact, it is the whole “holy lineage” crap the Al-Sauds are pulling off that is partly to blame for his movement.
So please, make your case or retract your statement. [/quote]
Ben Laden? Spelling error, or is that how it’s meant to be spelt?
Anyway, bad example. But I’m referring to those who try to force conversion. I suppose saying only one religion does it is a bad move on my part, so I will retract that part of my statement.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Makavali wrote:
lixy wrote:
Enlighten us then about this “extremist Islam”.
Because I sure never heard of any religion that privileges blood over actions.
Here’s that hijack I was afraid of.
What religion do you consider Osama Bin Laden and his ilk to be? I highly doubt you want to be lumped into that group. That’s why I make a distinction.
I certainly don’t want to be associated with Hindus that practice Sati, I figured the same logic would apply for Muslims who don’t blow themselves up?
It doesn’t matter one tiny bit what I consider Osama’s religion to be. I have never heard of any religion where lineage trumps actions (well, maybe capitalism, but that’s another story).
Since times immemorial, religions grew by guaranteeing equality and ensuring the low-status casts that they are no different than the big shots in the eyes of God/deities. I don’t know that much about Ben Laden, but from accounts of people who met him firsthand, he doesn’t seem like the racist type. In fact, it is the whole “holy lineage” crap the Al-Sauds are pulling off that is partly to blame for his movement.
So please, make your case or retract your statement. [/quote]
Just a point here…Why is it that the pope is so highly revered if he is the same as the low-status, He demands that they treat him like he is the only thing between them and heaven. He does this merely by his supposed status in the eyes of his followers.
Does this not, in it’s self make him different???
The followers look upon him with false (in my eyes) status…he is no more special physically or “supernaturally” than his followers in the terms stated.
He shits every day just like the rest of us…
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Ben Laden? Spelling error, or is that how it’s meant to be spelt? [/quote]
Transliterating Arabic names is a tricky business. I spell it “Ben Laden” because it’s closer to the way I pronounce his name. Granted, most Anglosaxons would spell it “Bin Laden” as you can gather from the media.
His family uses the term “Binladin” in official documents. I’m guessing it’s because of the exotic “Alladin” that’s built into it. Not that the “ladin” part is connected in any way in the two names.
I thank you for your intellectual honesty.
Now, join me in addressing a fat middle finger to Osama and his murderous ways. 3, 2, 1, flip!
[quote]Perfectcircle wrote:
Just a point here…Why is it that the pope is so highly revered if he is the same as the low-status, He demands that they treat him like he is the only thing between them and heaven. He does this merely by his supposed status in the eyes of his followers.
Does this not, in it’s self make him different???
The followers look upon him with false (in my eyes) status…he is no more special physically or “supernaturally” than his followers in the terms stated.
He shits every day just like the rest of us…[/quote]
You’re several centuries late to this game.
Anyway, as long as he doesn’t order them to commit crimes, they can give him all the status they want. Why would you care either way?
And to dwell on Makavali’s point, it’s quite likely that the Church would have turned into a family business if the Pope was allowed to procreate.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Now, join me in addressing a fat middle finger to Osama and his murderous ways. 3, 2, 1, flip![/quote]
Aw dang. I was about two seconds late. We should do it again.
3… 2… 1… FLIP!
[quote]mbm693 wrote:
Saying that the only options are having faith there is a god or having faith there isn’t a god leaves out a whole host of other possibilities.[/quote]
And if you even remotely consider any other possibility than the existence of a higher power for even the time it takes to blink your eyes you are an atheist because you lack faith. Faith is blind and unquestioning.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
mbm693 wrote:
Saying that the only options are having faith there is a god or having faith there isn’t a god leaves out a whole host of other possibilities.
And if you even remotely consider any other possibility than the existence of a higher power for even the time it takes to blink your eyes you are an atheist because you lack faith. Faith is blind and unquestioning.[/quote]
Faith that is “blind and unquestioning” is no faith at all - it is a kind of madness. Authentic faith requires the existence of a profound & indwelling doubt.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Faith that is “blind and unquestioning” is no faith at all - it is a kind of madness. Authentic faith requires the existence of a profound & indwelling doubt. [/quote]
That’s not the experience I have had living around bible thumpers my whole life.
[quote]mbm693 wrote:
Thomas Aquinas was a terrible philosopher because he spent all his time creating poorly crafted arguments to support his faith.
[/quote]
I’m just curious. Did you get this by actually reading & spending time with the Summa Theologica? With a competent tutor, guide or teacher? Or did you acquire your rather glib judgement by way of second hand materials?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
Faith that is “blind and unquestioning” is no faith at all - it is a kind of madness. Authentic faith requires the existence of a profound & indwelling doubt.
That’s not the experience I have had living around bible thumpers my whole life.
[/quote]
They truly give me the creeps. I’ve only seen that sort of thing on TV. Which probably explains why I no longer have one. 
Giving this some more thought…
You know, I kinda see now what Lixy et al are up against in being lumped in with a bunch of nut jobs who, ostensibly at least, seem to be associated with you because they come under the same rubric, whether it be “Christian,” or “Muslim.”
I can’t (or won’t?) try to answer for my “fellow christians” who engage in a kind of blind faith. Who take the Bible literally. Who foist their views upon other people. Who ask me if I am “saved by Jesus” when I walk down the street. Etc.