26 Mar 10
Originally posted by sonhouseTwo thoughts:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/living/2010/03/25/sam.harris.ted2010.cnn?hpt=C2
Sam Harris is a scientist and philosopher who advocates giving up religion and doing REAL things with our resources rather then dilute real human issues with worries about some god or other.
1) Harris assumes that a religious person cannot know that what they believe is true. But this assumption ignores the biblical concept of the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit; i.e., experiential revelation of truth via the Holy Spirit. Christian faith is not a blind faith, but rather an obedient response to revealed knowledge.
2) Regarding Harris' main point, that religion ought to be scrapped because it causes people to care about irrelevant issues like life after death or what God wants rather than more important issues such as nuclear proliferation, terrorism, the environment, etc., --- It should be pointed out that this same attack could be leveled at science, e.g., science itself ought to be scrapped because it causes people who are scientists to care about irrelevant issues like exosolar planets, landing robots on mars, and pursuing a Theory of Everything rather than more important issues like...
26 Mar 10
Originally posted by epiphinehasPoint # 1 is exactly what he is talking about, bringing up issues that do not effect the welfare of living humans.
Two thoughts:
1) Harris assumes that a religious person cannot know that what they believe is true. But this assumption ignores the biblical concept of the internal instigation of the Holy Spirit; i.e., experiential revelation of truth via the Holy Spirit. Christian faith is not a blind faith, but rather an obedient response to [i]revealed knowledge ...[text shortened]... g robots on mars, and pursuing a Theory of Everything rather than more important issues like...
#2, straw man.
26 Mar 10
Originally posted by sonhousePoint # 1 is exactly what he is talking about, bringing up issues that do not effect the welfare of living humans.
Point # 1 is exactly what he is talking about, bringing up issues that do not effect the welfare of living humans.
#2, straw man.
Must we ignore flawed premises, too, in order to better address the welfare of humanity?
#2, straw man.
How so?
26 Mar 10
Originally posted by epiphinehas#2 straw man is not an argument but a retaliation.
[b]Point # 1 is exactly what he is talking about, bringing up issues that do not effect the welfare of living humans.
Must we ignore flawed premises, too, in order to better address the welfare of humanity?
#2, straw man.
How so?[/b]
#1, there is no flaw in the argument that mankind is in need, immediate, physical need, not some 'spiritual' need. You can take care of your own spiritual needs without resort to organized religion but you sure as hell can't take care of failing crops or the loss of the arctic ice cap by praying to some alleged god.
26 Mar 10
Originally posted by sonhouseit may be argued that the worlds problems are due to a lack of spirituality, for example over exploitation and greed (a spiritual deficiency), resulting in environmental damage, depletion of rainforest, depletion of fish stocks, erosion etc etc
#2 straw man is not an argument but a retaliation.
#1, there is no flaw in the argument that mankind is in need, immediate, physical need, not some 'spiritual' need. You can take care of your own spiritual needs without resort to organized religion but you sure as hell can't take care of failing crops or the loss of the arctic ice cap by praying to some alleged god.
Secondly it may be argued that science itself has contributed to these problems, one thinks of CFCs and the former use of lead in petrols to name but two.
I found his argument to be quite unrealistic for it fails to acknowledge the many real problems that religious organisation are involved with, welfare programs, education etc etc.
26 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieTo say nothing of the religious wars ongoing for the last thousand years. Real spiritual stuff there my friend.
it may be argued that the worlds problems are due to a lack of spirituality, for example over exploitation and greed (a spiritual deficiency), resulting in environmental damage, depletion of rainforest, depletion of fish stocks, erosion etc etc
Secondly it may be argued that science itself has contributed to these problems, one thinks of CFCs and ...[text shortened]... eal problems that religious organisation are involved with, welfare programs, education etc etc.
26 Mar 10
3 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseyes i know, who can deny it? would banning religion make war a thing of the past? i doubt it for wars are mostly economic, regional, political, ethnical etc etc i actually believe that there will be some serious measures which see government banning organised religion, every day there are efforts at secularisation.
To say nothing of the religious wars ongoing for the last thousand years. Real spiritual stuff there my friend.
27 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRight now there are whole villages slaughtered because they would not convert to Islam. This is not some figment of some reporters imagination.
yes i know, who can deny it? would banning religion make war a thing of the past? i doubt it for wars are mostly economic, regional, political, ethnical etc etc i actually believe that there will be some serious measures which see government banning organised religion, every day there are efforts at secularisation.
And then there are the abortion doctors killed because it goes against some insane fundy's beliefs. Do you think the Afgan wars are about money? Those taliban asssholes want one thing, control of everyone in the valley and the utter subjugation of women. I hope their ilk gets wiped off the world map and shown for the cancer they are. Religious wars are fought for sincerely held principles that go with them into death. Into their supposed nirvana or heaven or 70 virgins or whatever other BS their fearless leaders feed into them.
In an increasingly interrelated monetary structure, China buying the US, US buying the Philippines, France holding on to Quebec, Just about the only holdouts are north and south Korea and the middle east.
Notice we just concluded a reduction in nuclear arms deal with Russia to get rid of 30 percent of our combined arsenals, China grows less communistic and more capitalistic every yearl. The US grows more socialistic year by year where there seems to be a growing world wide consensus to subvert our weapons into business deals and competition in the business world.
You don't notice the US bitching about Nepal do you?
You don't notice China spoiling for a fight over Taiwan now do you?
All the skirmishes are becoming more and more localized border disputes, bloody battles no doubt but when some rebels chew up Chechnya, you don't see a big push by Washington to send a half million troops in to assist the rebels.
They are bound to try to eliminate Bin Laden for crimes against the US but that is still a regional affair.
The US, nor China, nor Russia wants anything to do with a worldwide conflagration over 19th and 20th century ideology, that is a thing of the past. The only crazies left are Bin Laden, the Taliban, Iran, and north Korea, all of which are small boils on the face of reality. In reality, if any one of them launched a real nuclear weapon, say Iran to Tel Aviv or North Korea to Seoul, they would be consigned to a footnote in the history of horrors with the retaliations, but it would not lead to a world war.
That seems to me to lead to the conclusion that far from only one of hundreds of excuses for war, it seems to me religious hatred is very high on the list of the causes of war. You can try to dilute that as much as you want but I think the truth is, religious obsession and the self-righteous insanity in these people will keep war going long after ideologues fighting over capitalism V communism or whatever had long since lost favor over business.
27 Mar 10
Originally posted by sonhouse#2 straw man is not an argument but a retaliation.
#2 straw man is not an argument but a retaliation.
#1, there is no flaw in the argument that mankind is in need, immediate, physical need, not some 'spiritual' need. You can take care of your own spiritual needs without resort to organized religion but you sure as hell can't take care of failing crops or the loss of the arctic ice cap by praying to some alleged god.
I think you missed the point, i.e., it isn't necessarily so that religion obstructs society from addressing secular problems in an intelligent, practical manner, even if religion's primary focus is the spiritual needs of individuals. In other words, Harris' position is weak; no stronger than declaring science's focus on space exploration, the nature of dark matter and other ethereal pursuits, an obstruction to addressing secular problems such as poverty, environmental exploitation, nuclear proliferation, etc.
#1, there is no flaw in the argument that mankind is in need, immediate, physical need, not some 'spiritual' need. You can take care of your own spiritual needs without resort to organized religion but you sure as hell can't take care of failing crops or the loss of the arctic ice cap by praying to some alleged god.
First of all, the flaw I was referring to is Harris' assumption that religious people cannot know that their beliefs are true; in Christianity's case, the truth content of beliefs can be known through revelation. Secondly, as I pointed out above, addressing a spiritual need does not necessarily preclude the intelligent, practical addressing of immediate physical needs. Thirdly, the immediacy of physical needs has no bearing on the ultimate significance of spiritual needs, nor does it make spiritual needs inconsequential. Fourthly, speaking of straw man arguments, where is it said that religion endorses prayer without action, that prayer alone ought to replace the pursuit and industrious implementation of successful problem solving strategies?
27 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseIs the war in Iraq a religious war? Did the Americans invade on religious grounds? No, they were wondering what their oil was doing under Iraqi sand! What about the Taliban, essentially funded and given weapons by the American government, perhaps it was for religious purposes, hardly now was it! It was to fight the Russkies, my goodness where else were they getting stinger missiles from? You shouldn't believe everything you hear on FOX you know.
Right now there are whole villages slaughtered because they would not convert to Islam. This is not some figment of some reporters imagination.
And then there are the abortion doctors killed because it goes against some insane fundy's beliefs. Do you think the Afgan wars are about money? Those taliban asssholes want one thing, control of everyone in the v es fighting over capitalism V communism or whatever had long since lost favor over business.
27 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat was the result of 19th and 20th century ideology which has already played out, so anything Taliban has now is leftover, they are certainly recognized now for the cancer they are. I NEVER watch fox news, I am more of a PBS person btw🙂
Is the war in Iraq a religious war? Did the Americans invade on religious grounds? No, they were wondering what their oil was doing under Iraqi sand! What about the Taliban, essentially funded and given weapons by the American government, perhaps it was for religious purposes, hardly now was it! It was to fight the Russkies, my goodness where else ...[text shortened]... they getting stinger missiles from? You shouldn't believe everything you hear on FOX you know.
We passed a health care bill in the US and republicans are on the warpath, totally ignoring the needs of 30 million people in the US. It is clear repubs could care less about actual people, of course being frothed up by world class asssholes like Rush Limberger. I can't believe a world class hypocrite like him could win a 400 million dollar contract. He should be in a looney bin and not allowed to talk to animals much less humans.
27 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by sonhouseSure my friend, i understand, it was the neocons and their colonialism. One of course is interested to note what role religion played in their agenda. For example i heard that the Bible used to be read during the last presidents term on a daily basis, one must wonder whether the words reverberated against the side of his head, out into the stratosphere.. Also Deucer has stated that they have used religion as a way to stir up fervour for their campaigns. I find it really interesting that a body supposedly there to represent freedom should be so dedicated to enslaving others to their ideology, ultimate irony and certainly hypocritical.
That was the result of 19th and 20th century ideology which has already played out, so anything Taliban has now is leftover, they are certainly recognized now for the cancer they are. I NEVER watch fox news, I am more of a PBS person btw🙂
We passed a health care bill in the US and republicans are on the warpath, totally ignoring the needs of 30 million p lar contract. He should be in a looney bin and not allowed to talk to animals much less humans.
i stayed up last night and watched Letters from Iwo Jima, an awesome movie about, among other things, the utter futility of war.
27 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe use of religion as an excuse for war is exactly the reason to rid humanity of the disaster that religion represents. There is nothing wrong with each individual finding spirituality wherever they want but individuals have a habit of being subsumed in a man made orgy of religious power mongering by the leaders of these so-called religions. I would not dignify organized religions with that name, I would call them for what they are, power mongers and subjugation of women in particular. That right there says no god deemed these 'religions' to be real, only man made. There is no spirituality in organized religion, only sham to frighten people into believing the hogwash of organized religious power struggles. That is the real truth of religion.
Sure my friend, i understand, it was the neocons and their colonialism. One of course is interested to note what role religion played in their agenda. For example i heard that the Bible used to be read during the last presidents term on a daily basis, one must wonder whether the words reverberated against the side of his head, out into the stratosp ...[text shortened]... ed Letters from Iwo Jima, an awesome movie about, among other things, the utter futility of war.
29 Mar 10
Originally posted by sonhouseyes, the non religious killings in cambodgia and mother russia were much better.
To say nothing of the religious wars ongoing for the last thousand years. Real spiritual stuff there my friend.
to mention religious wars is as relevant as yelling atomic bombs. you don't scrape nuclear power plants because they might go boom, you ensure they don't.