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.
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?
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.
#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
More like Veena, please
http://www.spectator.co.uk/nickcohen/6806063/more-like-veena-please...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.
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.
//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!
Islam Islam Islam Islam Islam Islam Islam Islam IS THE MOST HARMFUL ONE ;; don't ask me why , i just know
I hate it because it's antiwoman
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. 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.