Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
"We must find our way to a time when faith, without evidence, disgraces anyone who would claim it." -Sam Harris
And the bible says the same thing.
Psalm 82
2How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
The bible and Jesus is constantly talking about the foolishness of accepting things vs understanding. It is only the church, and those who have
deemed themselves "authority" on these things that teach acceptance. It's the entire function of authority, to be accepted as truth. Thus, the
entire reason Jesus tells them - do not make yourself into an authority.
If you accept, then you will not understand. Plain as day. It's the difference between memorizing 1+1=2 because some authority told you, and
actually being able to add. The church preaches 1+1=2 but does not give real understanding most times. They decieve men for power, but if you
can't realize that the bible specifically talks against these things, then you aren't even looking for the truth, you're looking for ways to prop
up your own beliefs and bias.
"...it is a telling fact that, the world over, the vast majority of children follow the religion of their parents rather than any of the other
available religions." -Richard Dawkins
Oh this guy again. It's called
culture. I also speak the same language as my parents, eat the same kinds of foods, took the same math
classes and so forth.
HELLO!!!!.
As already established, real truth is understanding. Understanding is universal. The ways in which that understanding is expressed changes from
culture to culture. I may express math with the symbols 1+1=2, another culture may use completely different symbols. But guess what? While we
may be using different symbols and such, we are still expressing the same
understanding.
A rose by any other name smells the same. That you would quote such nonsense and not make the above obvious connection is sad.
"For if we could guarantee them their dogma of immortality in some other way, the lively ardor for their gods would at once cool; and… if continued
existence after death could be proved to be incompatible with the existence of gods… they would soon sacrifice these gods to their own immortality,
and be hot for atheism." - Arthur Schopenhauer
Once again, dogma = acceptance. Those who make themselves into authorities into be accepted are the "wicked". You are not supposed to do that at
all.
I like that last one a crapton because it speaks largely of how I view religion. A way for people to come to terms with the fear of death.
Not many religions out there that tell you there is no afterlife lol.
And yet, you are still accepting what people say about god as being an actual reflection of god. As such, even though you deny and disagree with
them,
you are still putting them into authority on the topic and allowing them to define it for you.
If I say the sky is yellow. 1 person accepts that I am telling the truth, has no idea and says - the sky is yellow! And then another person comes
along and says, "I don't see anything yellow, the sky doesn't exist!". Well guess what? It doesn't matter which side of the argument they
have taken,
BOTH have accepted me as an authority on the topic of the sky, and both still lack understanding.
You are doing the same thing. Atheists and believers - same thing to me. Just people who do not understand.
"Recognize that the very molecules that make up your body, the atoms that construct the molecules, are traceable to the crucibles that were once the
centers of high mass stars that exploded their chemically rich guts into the galaxy, enriching pristine gas clouds with the chemistry of life. So that
we are all connected to each other biologically, to the earth chemically and to the rest of the universe atomically. That’s kinda cool! That makes
me smile and I actually feel quite large at the end of that. It’s not that we are better than the universe, we are part of the universe. We are in
the universe and the universe is in us."
— Neil deGrasse Tyson
What is flesh is flesh, what is spirit is spirit. Science is best suited for bringing about understanding of the flesh, Philosophy(religion without
the authority and in it's pure form) is best suited for matters of the spirit. It is foolish to think you must pick 1 or the other, rather than
using and putting both in their proper places.
Science = action and reaction.
Philosophy = reason and understanding.
Or has been expressed for
ages, what is flesh is flesh(creation/action and reaction) and what is spirit is spirit(reason and understanding).
It takes a scientist(reason and understanding) in order to have science.
My favorite quote regarding Religion would be one you might not consider to be a quote in the typical sense of a quote.
It is none other than the Scientific Method!
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for
new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
How about actually applying that, rather than accepting what people say. You haven't even begun to ask the right questions, which means let me know
when you make it to step 1.
What are
you?.
[edit on 7/12/2009 by badmedia]
O_E
(oops said it
anyway 
)
