29 Mar 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziYes,indeed. Sometimes I find this forum is like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog they inhabit.
yes, the non religious killings in cambodgia and mother russia were much better.
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.
30 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThanks Robbie Carrobie the Flobby Dobby Moo Man.
Its a Pink Floyd song Karoly, nothing more, i just wanted to confuse you, you know i am completely non violent 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgvAwBDbuIo
Is it just me or have your posts been getting better lately?
Serious. I have found a newfound respect for you , which is something I never thought I would be typing.
Its like Pink Floyd. I respect them, but I'm not really a fan🙂
30 Mar 10
Originally posted by karoly aczelwell i dunno Karoly Poly, the problems that you witnessed in the past were due to the huge differences in doctrinal understanding between christians and others, some of which cannot be substantiated, therefore people resort to personal attacks etc etc i am sure your new found respect will be dashed to pieces by one or two ill conceived post of mine in the future, watch this space . . . . 🙂
Thanks Robbie Carrobie the Flobby Dobby Moo Man.
Is it just me or have your posts been getting better lately?
Serious. I have found a newfound respect for you , which is something I never thought I would be typing.
Its like Pink Floyd. I respect them, but I'm not really a fan🙂
30 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobiepossibly,possibly. Just seems your a very colourful,well-lived character, who cant be easily dismissed.
well i dunno Karoly Poly, the problems that you witnessed in the past were due to the huge differences in doctrinal understanding between christians and others, some of which cannot be substantiated, therefore people resort to personal attacks etc etc i am sure your new found respect will be dashed to pieces by one or two ill conceived post of mine in the future, watch this space . . . . 🙂
...btw that 'flea' quote was from "Crocodile Dundee".
30 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by amolv06i actually thought it was a piece of nonsense. He and all atheists must answer, why the application of biblical principles really helps people in their lives.
Good video.
It gives them purpose. It helps overcome all manner of addictions to drugs, alcohol, tobacco, prostitution. It provides practical assistance with financial management and budgeting. It encourages honesty and hard work, generosity, kindness and hospitality. Fidelity to ones marriage mate and sound principles for a successful marriage. To state that persons are so focused on the afterlife making the application of religious principles of no practical worth, well, to put quite mildly, was ill conceived and displayed a real, almost inconceivable lack of understanding for one purporting to be so learned.
31 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy did you think it was a piece of nonsense? What did you disagree with?
i actually thought it was a piece of nonsense. He and all atheists must answer, why the application of biblical principles really helps people in their lives.
It gives them purpose. It helps overcome all manner of addictions to drugs, alcohol, tobacco, prostitution. It provides practical assistance with financial management and budgeting. It ...[text shortened]... isplayed a real, almost inconceivable lack of understanding for one purporting to be so learned.
I am willing to concede that religion may help people live more fulfilling lives. And I'm willing to accept that you do not share my naturalistic world view, which we can debate elsewhere. But I did not see any part of the video that I would disagree with.
-Amolv06, my girlfriend was signed in.
31 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by jekeckelperhaps it was the false assertion, which to be quite frank was utterly contemptible, in which he stated that religion was of no practical use, because it was overly concerned with the afterlife and as a direct consequence has failed to tackle 'real problems'. It strikes me, quite unerringly as a piece of nonsense. If you are in disagreement that it is nonsense, then let your explanations be heard, for i can assure you, that millions of persons have benefited, in very real and practical terms, through the application of biblical principles, and i would even go as far to state, that it has been the neglect and suppression of these principles which has caused more real world problems than anything i can care to mention. You are of course free to disagree, never the less, let us here what is in your mind. I very briefly gave a small summery of 'real', instances in which persons have been helped through the application of biblical principles in their lives, if you have any assertion as to why that is deficient, impractical, should be done away with, then please also let these thoughts be heard. 🙂
Why did you think it was a piece of nonsense? What did you disagree with?
I am willing to concede that religion may help people live more fulfilling lives. And I'm willing to accept that you do not share my naturalistic world view, which we can debate elsewhere. But I did not see any part of the video that I would disagree with.
-Amolv06, my girlfriend was signed in.
31 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is not what I got out of the video. What I heard him say was that religious belief distracts us from amending certain problems related to the human condition, while giving other issues importance that they do not deserve. This is a statement that I would agree with wholeheartedly.
perhaps it was the false assertion, which to be quite frank was utterly contemptible, in which he stated that religion was of no practical use, because it was overly concerned with the afterlife and as a direct consequence has failed to tackle 'real problems'.
31 Mar 10
Originally posted by amolv06And I would agree too, but I believe epiphinehas gave a good counter argument which I believe is along the lines of "Who decides which problems are important". Clearly if a given religions beliefs are true, then the efforts of that religion may in fact be more important than the efforts Sam Harris believes to be important.
This is not what I got out of the video. What I heard him say was that religious belief distracts us from amending certain problems related to the human condition, while giving other issues importance that they do not deserve. This is a statement that I would agree with wholeheartedly.
Of course a similar problem exists even amongst those of us who are not religious, ie do we strive to end world hunger and cure malaria and aids or do we explore space and build better computer games? What are our priorities and why?
31 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis denies the thesis of Harris' argument (which I don't necessarily agree with). He argues there is a lot more concordance about what issues are actually important than the secular community lets on, and that science can make valuable contributions in deciding what ideas should and should not be important. Based on this assumption, I think the statement presented in my above post holds. Of course this is a big assumption, but I think he has gone great lengths to qualify it by multiple talks on the subject (his TED one was good I think), articles, and a book on the way. The implicit consensus today is that science does not, and perhaps can not have anything to contribute to this area of discussion. Harris wants to dispel this idea.
And I would agree too, but I believe epiphinehas gave a good counter argument which I believe is along the lines of "Who decides which problems are important". Clearly if a given religions beliefs are true, then the efforts of that religion may in fact be more important than the efforts Sam Harris believes to be important.
Discourse on morality informed by science would ideally not be muddled with conflicting dogmas. I think Harris believes that this idealization is not beyond realization. I think this is the point that Harris was trying to make, rather than saying that religion offers no perceivable benefit to the devoted.