The future...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-04-2017, 07:02 AM
RE: The future...
(12-04-2017 06:44 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(12-04-2017 05:05 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I would caution that dismissing the concepts that divide us is merely a recipe for division where redefining said concepts can remind us that we are one.

Except we aren't one at all. I don't want to unite or cooperate with religious people who are prejudiced against fact-based claims about the world, and they don't want to unite or cooperate with us either.

Sorry, but the real world dictates that some ideas are mutually exclusive, and that among such ideas, some are supported by the evidence and others aren't.

If those ideas are subsets of ideas that are inclusionary, wouldn't it be better to focus on the latter than the former?

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
12-04-2017, 07:10 AM
RE: The future...
(12-04-2017 06:58 AM)mordant Wrote:  
(12-04-2017 06:04 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Well, it is. "Belief without evidence" doesn't strap a motherfucker up with a vest of C-4.
It doesn't? Seems like to be a suicide bomber you must believe without evidence that (1) god exists, (2) wants you to kill infidels and (3) has a special surprise waiting for you on the (4) Other Side.

Half the time I'm ready to go for my Gwynnies at the drop of a pin, so no. The evidence that god exists has been and continues to be that so many people believe in god. Kinda like how money has value. Also there is a joyous contentment in anticipating a conclusion while making a statement. I was gonna strap up and give Chase a visit, so I'm not making assumptions about another's mindset, rather revisiting my own.

And now look what happened? Gwynnie could read this and go Gasp

And I'd go Gasp

And have to end my shit for embarrassing my Gwynnies without making a point. Weeping

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2017, 10:24 AM
RE: The future...
(12-04-2017 07:02 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  If those ideas are subsets of ideas that are inclusionary, wouldn't it be better to focus on the latter than the former?

Perhaps you will have to explain to me what you mean in this context, but it seems to me that religious people are the one's excluding themselves from the implications of science.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
12-04-2017, 12:29 PM
RE: The future...
(12-04-2017 06:44 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(12-04-2017 05:05 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  I would caution that dismissing the concepts that divide us is merely a recipe for division where redefining said concepts can remind us that we are one.

Except we aren't one at all. I don't want to unite or cooperate with religious people who are prejudiced against fact-based claims about the world, and they don't want to unite or cooperate with us either.

I think one of the problems is that religion is often viewed as a character flaw instead of the mental health issue it is.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
12-04-2017, 12:31 PM
RE: The future...
(12-04-2017 06:58 AM)mordant Wrote:  
(12-04-2017 06:04 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Well, it is. "Belief without evidence" doesn't strap a motherfucker up with a vest of C-4.
It doesn't? Seems like to be a suicide bomber you must believe without evidence that (1) god exists, (2) wants you to kill infidels and (3) has a special surprise waiting for you on the (4) Other Side.

Think that's what pbuh is saying. Faith is not merely "belief without evidence" to these fuckers but something much darker and more sinister.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
12-04-2017, 12:53 PM
RE: The future...
(12-04-2017 10:24 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(12-04-2017 07:02 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  If those ideas are subsets of ideas that are inclusionary, wouldn't it be better to focus on the latter than the former?

Perhaps you will have to explain to me what you mean in this context, but it seems to me that religious people are the one's excluding themselves from the implications of science.

Connecting faith to moral certainty and including it in the toolset by which we simulate future could be seen as our effort at bridging the chasm across the divide. The wise among them could not stand idly and still claim the moral ground.

But these are just words and what they suggest is a softening of hearts and a process of growth and understanding.

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-04-2017, 01:47 PM
RE: The future...
(12-04-2017 06:04 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(12-04-2017 06:00 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  That's what the evidence shows if we look at many people of faith. They confuse moral certainty with faith.

Well, it is. "Belief without evidence" doesn't strap a motherfucker up with a vest of C-4.

Right. It's usually Semtex.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: