Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, I've already had my discussion with Odbod on his OP. It's up to him if he wants to continue.

However, all Robbie had to say to him was: "This is a non sequitur right from the very beginning making it neither logical or reasonable. Ironic really."

Calling Odbod's OP a "non-sequitur" or "neither logical or reasonable" is just trying to shut him do ...[text shortened]... r to discuss than just to shout out your own opinion more loudly. I thought I was pretty clear.

It's easy to misunderstand what people are saying in internet forums. I agree with your point. Robbie likes his rhetoric, sometimes it's empty and sometimes it's not.

Originally posted by OdBod
The religious way of thinking endorses and encourages belief in absolute truths and the abandonment of logic and reason in favor of faith. By legitimising this kind of thinking, religion must bare a large part of the blame for the existence of extremists who use this kind of thinking to further their cause.

The way you've written your OP it is independent of whether God exists or not. I'm wondering if that God does not exist is an implicit assumption in what you've written. After all if God does exist, and suppose for the sake of discussion the Christians are broadly correct, then being a Christian is clearly the right move. So is what you are criticising the underlying belief - are you claiming that believing in things that don't exist is unhealthy, in which case I think that there's an epistemological problem with your point - or are you pointing to a problem with what some religions do. Is the problem you are pointing to that some priests tell their followers what to think?

As I understand it, in Hinduism they have a notion of an underlying reality that humans cannot understand. So any given sect within Hinduism and, indeed, any other religion has validity because it captures something of the underlying reality. So to them Christianity and for that matter atheism are perfectly valid belief systems. It's just that atheism and Christianity both regard Hinduism as invalid, for different reasons. So does what you're are saying apply to Hinduism?

Originally posted by OdBod
Actually, you are quite wrong in assuming I believe I have a clear understanding on what the Universe is. I know we have so much more to learn. This means I am always open to new ideas and not tied down to the concept of an absolute belief. At least a scientific approach is in the business of accumulating information on an ongoing basis, rather than relying on fixed old texts.

I believe we disagree, and I'm saying what you think you know you do
indeed think you understand it enough to make judgments upon things that
cannot be proven wrong. As soon as you tell me there is no X, or there is
an X, and you know this is true, you've made a judgment call, that is
without a doubt assume you know what your talking about.

If I tell you what I believe and what my faith is, that does not mean I have
come to a place where I have stopped learning and my desire to understand
anything at all!

Where I say I believe God created the universe I'm being up front about
how I look at anything, when someone tells me they are pure in how they
look at everything because they use science is telling me that they are not
being upfront about how they filter everything they see.

Originally posted by OdBod
You have missed the point of the OP. But have supported it's contention in your post. You acknowledge that the extremists use god to legitimize their actions!!!!!

In remembrance of a greater man who we lost this week: "five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind."

Originally posted by Suzianne
I still maintain that the scientific method cannot be applied to matters of faith. Those of faith get this, but those whose entire repertoire of knowledge consists of the scientific method and ONLY the scientific method, will never find faith, no matter how long they look, as long as they insist on using the application of the scientific method as their only tool to search for it.

The strange think to me is that the people who make this argument are willing to apply it to religion, but not to love, æsthetic taste, or any of the other things that aren't explicable by science but still exist. If they are so willing to do away with faith because it's "counter-intellectual", they should also be eager to forbid all marriages except those arranged by statistics. Yet for some reason they never are. Maybe their wives won't let them 😛

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
The strange think to me is that the people who make this argument are willing to apply it to religion, but not to love, æsthetic taste, or any of the other things that aren't explicable by science but still exist. If they are so willing to do away with faith because it's "counter-intellectual", they should also be eager to forbid all marriages except th ...[text shortened]... arranged by statistics. Yet for some reason they never are. Maybe their wives won't let them 😛

Or perhaps there are other, more immediate, or rather, more instantaneous, rewards for carrying on with it.

🙂

Originally posted by OdBod
You cannot prove the existence of god through logic and reason , it comes down to faith.

True, a lot of things cannot be proven that comes down to faith, and some
things we do everyday we think are sound and safe are not always yet we do
them because we believe they are.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The way you've written your OP it is independent of whether God exists or not. I'm wondering if that God does not exist is an implicit assumption in what you've written. After all if God does exist, and suppose for the sake of discussion the Christians are broadly correct, then being a Christian is clearly the right move. So is what you are criticisin ...[text shortened]... d Hinduism as invalid, for different reasons. So does what you're are saying apply to Hinduism?

I am questioning the danger of promoting belief without any doubt . I think religion encourages this mind set.

Originally posted by DeepThought
It's easy to misunderstand what people are saying in internet forums. I agree with your point. Robbie likes his rhetoric, sometimes it's empty and sometimes it's not.

oh dear, its so absolutely wrong as to be nowhere near what was intended.

The op's statement is a non sequitur because the logic does not lend itself to the conclusions that he has drawn and upon which he based his text.

For example there is no reason to assume that a person of faith will abandon reason and logic in preference for faith. A religious person may indeed have a very logical and reasonable reason for professing a religious belief. Furthermore that religious belief may lead them to further inquiry, even scientific enquiry in the case of someone like Newton who was essentially motivated by his religious beliefs to make a thorough logical and reasoned search and examination of the physical world. The Bible itself states that Gods qualities are discerned by the things made (the physical world). This is what inspired Newton to make the discoveries that he did, his religious belief. It therefore become rather apparent that the OP's insistence that a religious way of thinking prejudices someone to dispense with logic and reason is not only unfounded but the premise does not support his conclusion. In fact it may even be demonstrated that its the non religious base materialist that has limited his search for truth to unintelligent agencies. Again, rather ironic all things considered.

As for suzziwoozzi's rather undignified assertion that it was an attempt to silence the op is nonsense and reflective not of me but of her. She really does assume far too much and it leads her to adopt all manner of unfounded views. It would perhaps be better for her to try to ascertain what someone means before pole vaulting to conclusions.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
The strange think to me is that the people who make this argument are willing to apply it to religion, but not to love, æsthetic taste, or any of the other things that aren't explicable by science but still exist. If they are so willing to do away with faith because it's "counter-intellectual", they should also be eager to forbid all marriages except th ...[text shortened]... arranged by statistics. Yet for some reason they never are. Maybe their wives won't let them 😛

Actually SB I think that biochemical processes do create the other subjects you have mentioned. But you are correct, I wouldn't dare tell my wife this. 🙂

Originally posted by OdBod
Actually SB I think that biochemical processes do create the other subjects you have mentioned. But you are correct, I wouldn't dare tell my wife this. 🙂

wow the folly of the materialist, attempting to reduce the human experience to electrochemical processes. Is it not your use of absolutes like, 'there is no God ', which promote beliefs without any doubt. Is not your insistence and willingness to limit your search for truth to unintelligent agencies which has led you to adopt this mindset? Ironic don't you think?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wow the folly of the materialist, attempting to reduce the human experience to electrochemical processes. Is it not your use of absolutes like, 'there is no God ', which promote beliefs without any doubt. Is not your insistence and willingness to limit your search for truth to unintelligent agencies which has led you to adopt this mindset? Ironic don't you think?

I think you will find, that by reducing some human experience to bioelectrochemical processes modern medicine has been able to help many people, a good thing don't you think? I do not hold with absolutes, at present I think there is no god, but I might be wrong. You RC cannot say you might be wrong about the existence of your god . That is one of the important differences between you and I, you do not need search for truth because you believe you have found it.

Originally posted by OdBod
I think you will find, that by reducing some human experience to bioelectrochemical processes modern medicine has been able to help many people, a good thing don't you think? I do not hold with absolutes, at present I think there is no god, but I might be wrong. You RC cannot say you might be wrong about the existence of your god . That is one of the important ...[text shortened]... ences between you and I, you do not need search for truth because you believe you have found it.

you were not talking about the advance of medical science, you were referring to things like love, smiling, wonderment etc, so lets not get disingenuous, if you please!

You like suzziwuzzi assume far too much. Faith needs to be exercised otherwise it dies, one exercises ones faith through study and research. Once again your prejudices are leading you to make unsound assertions.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you were not talking about the advance of medical science, you were referring to things like love, smiling, wonderment etc, so lets not get disingenuous, if you please!

You like suzziwuzzi assume far too much. Faith needs to be exercised otherwise it dies, one exercises ones faith through study and research. Once again your prejudices are leading you to make unsound assertions.

You don't see a connection between mental health problems and emotions? With reference to your last point, I apologize if I have assumed too much, I thought it was a certainty that you could not bring doubt into your belief.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Look, even I embrace science, as far as it goes to explain the "How?" of everything.

No, no you don't.

As evidenced most recently by your complete refusal to acknowledge sciences
position on memory and the reliability of eyewitness testimony and personal
experience as evidence.

You accept science ONLY when it doesn't happen to contradict your religious
world view.

If you claim otherwise then I ask you again to respond to my question in this
thread: [last post]

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=162877&page=10