Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Adam Weber on March 26, 2011 at 7:02pm

I dont think I know better or I have it right, I never said that and I am an empiricist, so that allegation is unfounded.

 

However, I would of been tried at the inquisition; since I am a Jewish Christian.

I am not a heretic. Most people are called heretics because of the different ideas/opinions of Christology; Arians, neostrianisms, monphysites and Gnostics were all heretics.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mo Trauen on March 26, 2011 at 11:09pm

You do think you know better than others who say they are Christian, you've made that quite clear.  You have repeatedly made the argument that the doctrines of "other christians" are wrong and that you are defending the "real" message of Christ.  Empiricism has nothing to do with it.  If you were an empiricist, you wouldn't be a Christian.  Face it, you're a heretic.  Actually, these days most Christians are heretics, yet somehow none of them see the irony of their calls for theocracy.  They are so ignorant of the history of their own church that they don't understand that without modern secular philosophy, they would be burned at the stake along with us atheists.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam Weber on March 27, 2011 at 7:19am

Hold on a second. You do realise all the great recent philosophers were Christians/theists (that includes the John Locke who 'invented' empiricism).

Im an empiricist and an existentialist, I can still be a Christian, I do not see why I could not be.

 

I do not think I'm better. I mainly use philosophy while the average Christian will use theology, its a different mindset and I am always told by my theologian friends that we are looking at the issue different, he uses theology while I use philosophy.

 

Explain how I am a heretic? Because I dont like green eggs and ham? 

 

Secular philosophy? such as?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mo Trauen on March 27, 2011 at 8:32am

Freedom of religion and separation of church and state are purely secular notions.  In fact, one could make an argument that those two notions define secular political philosophy.  Without them you would have to face a government controlled by one of the dominant religions.  You have made it quite clear that your opinions do not agree with the doctrines of those dominant Christian churches.  If one of them were in control of your government, you would be facing potential heresy charges.  Your defense of "I don't think I am better" is not a defense to the charge of heresy.  Heresy consists of choosing to think for yourself and coming to conclusion that disagree with prescribed doctrines.

 

Recent philosophers?!!!  John Locke?!!!  I don't know how to tell you this, but John Locke died in 1704.  He is definitely not a "recent philosopher.  Not that it matters.  Your obsession with "authority" is typical for a believer.  What Giordano Bruno said just before he was executed is a universal truth:  What is true, is true regardless of who believes it.  Locke was right about some things and wrong about others.

 

Locke may have helped lay the groundwork for empiricism, but he didn't define it completely.  True empiricism rejects things for which there is no objective evidence.

Permalink Reply by Tammy on March 25, 2011 at 5:06pm

I was going to respond to this but Jesus_Was_A_Man   and Mo Trauen did a fine job of responding to your... remark. 

 

Thanks though.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by atheistrising on March 24, 2011 at 12:54am

#1- What is the most harmful religion in your opinion?

Islam because can get bounties put on their life for criticizing it

 

#2- What is the most harmful side of that most harmful religion?

Intolerance, death orders against peaceful writers, comedians for discussing it

 

#3- I know we can not eradicate any religion, but it must be a smart way to mitigate it.

Real science education to kids. All kids learn science they will ask more questions sooner or later the religion has to answer the inconsistencies that religion has. Like why there is a verse in  bible that asks to kill someone if they dont keep sabbath holy, or why Allah would like burn and blind the non believers etc

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hope on March 24, 2011 at 2:51pm

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jesus_Was_A_Man_Or_Myth_Or_Both on March 26, 2011 at 12:35pm

More like Veena, please

NICK COHEN

TUESDAY, 22ND MARCH 2011

 

If we are going to avoid a clash of civilisations, we are going to need many more like the Pakistani actress Veena Malik. Watch her take on a mullah, who is trying to accuse her of immoral behaviour. This is no small accusation in Pakistan where Islamist death squads and their collaborators in the state intelligence service, operate at will. The talk show setting of the attempt at trial by media is commonplace too. The murder of Salman Taseer followed days of hacks whipping up “Muslim rage” against him.

Instead of being frightened, Malik turns on her accuser and the journalist, who helped set her up, and lets them have it.

Brave, beautiful and utterly magnificent.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/nickcohen/6806063/more-like-veena-please...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe Lofty on March 25, 2011 at 1:12pm

Most harmful?

I don't think there is a way to single out a religion for the ammount of threat it represents: They are all dangerous.

Most harmful side of that most harmful religion?

Repression of thought and critical thinking. Also, in my experience, being thought "lesser" for asking questions in general. In my opinion, it is only human to wonder and seek truth. It's offending to think that one two-legged, red-blooded human could think another of the exact same ilk to be any different because they cannot blindly accept such claims.

Mitigation? As many have said, education. One way to put out a fire is to derive it of oxygen.

 

Sorry if I got away from the base idea of the post.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hope on March 26, 2011 at 8:01am

//Repression of thought and critical thinking. Also, in my experience, being thought "lesser" for asking questions in general. In my opinion, it is only human to wonder and seek truth. It's offending to think that one two-legged, red-blooded human could think another of the exact same ilk to be any different because they cannot blindly accept such claims.//

Well said Joi!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by idcollapse Ra on March 26, 2011 at 12:37am

Islam Islam Islam Islam Islam Islam Islam Islam IS THE MOST HARMFUL ONE ;; don't ask me why , i just know 

 :-)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hope on March 26, 2011 at 8:16am

I hate it because it's antiwoman

Islam's Shame 

by Ibn Warraq

Islam is deeply anti-woman. Islam is the fundamental cause of the repression of Muslim women and remains the major obstacle to the evolution of their position.[1] Islam has always considered women as creatures inferior in every way: physically, intellectually, and morally. This negative vision is divinely sanctioned in the Koran, corroborated by the hadiths, and perpetuated by the commentaries of the theologians, the custodians of Muslim dogma and ignorance.

Far better for these intellectuals to abandon the religious argument, to reject these sacred texts, and have recourse to reason alone. They should turn instead to human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted on December 10, 1948, by the General Assembly of the United Nations in Paris and ratified by most Muslim countries) at no point has recourse to a religious argument. These rights are based on natural rights, which any adult human being capable of choice has. They are rights that human beings have simply because they are human beings. Human reason or rationality is the ultimate arbiter of rights - human rights, the rights of women.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next ›
• Page