Originally posted by FMF So you recommend that, in order to feel "hope", people should tell themselves and each other that there is some sort of existence beyond this life? Do they have to actually believe it?
I would add that my dog is perfectly content with life, and finds purpose and meaning without any deep hope for eternity. (He does 'hope' though there are squirrels in the park).
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke I would add that my dog is perfectly content with life, and finds purpose and meaning without any deep hope for eternity. (He does 'hope' though there are squirrels in the park).
It is contended that the difference between man and say... dogs is that man can ask questions.
I am not saying there is any meaning to find (not in any worldly sense), heck no.
But I would contend that humans have a common purpose in saving the environment for all our cute little fury critters 🙂
Originally posted by josephw ...Basing one's life on the truth is living a life of purpose and meaning free of religious practices.
Yes. When "truth' means faith belief (ie belief without evidence) in a book of myth. I'm calling you out on this. Christian "truth" is ignorant superstition. Shame on you. Stop warping normative usage of basic english terms. You sound stupid.
Originally posted by apathist Yes. When "truth' means faith belief (ie belief without evidence) in a book of myth. I'm calling you out on this. Christian "truth" is ignorant superstition. Shame on you. Stop warping normative usage of basic english terms. You sound stupid.
You know, I can even get behind this line of thinking (I accept that Christianity is indeed a religion), but when you get to "Christian 'truth' is ignorant superstition" (which, in itself, is "belief without evidence" ), then you're the one who sounds stupid, because it turns out that you are "calling him out" for something you believe yourself (belief without evidence).
Originally posted by FMF Your ideology-driven attempt to distort the actual meaning of words is perhaps a textbook example of "chattering away aimlessly".
And your own ideology drives you to attach the word 'ideology' to everything Christian.
Originally posted by Suzianne You know, I can even get behind this line of thinking (I accept that Christianity is indeed a religion), but when you get to "Christian 'truth' is ignorant superstition" (which, in itself, is "belief without evidence" ), then you're the one who sounds stupid, because it turns out that you are "calling him out" for something you believe yourself (belief without evidence).
"Superstition" means a belief in supernatural causality; it doesn't mean "belief without evidence". As for the word "ignorant", I would not use it to describe Christians generally, or any group generally. I don't think being "superstitious" automatically goes hand in hand with being "ignorant" at all. I know what apathist is getting at, but I think his usage is a bit of a blunderbuss thing. There are "ignorant superstitious" people, yes, and there are "ignorant" people who are not the slightest bit "superstitious" too.
Originally posted by FMF All religions are ideologies.
An ideology is a collection of beliefs held by an individual, group or society. It can be described as a set of conscious and unconscious ideas which make up one's beliefs, goals, expectations, and motivations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology
According to this definition, your individual beliefs also form an ideology. So what makes your 'ideology' any better than someone else's 'ideology'?
Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk According to this definition, your individual beliefs also form an ideology.
So?
So what makes your 'ideology' any better than someone else's 'ideology'?
It may well not be. Whether it's "any better than someone else's" is something for others to decide. If they show me that it's not, perhaps my ideology will change.
Originally posted by Suzianne You know, I can even get behind this line of thinking (I accept that Christianity is indeed a religion), but when you get to "Christian 'truth' is ignorant superstition" (which, in itself, is "belief without evidence" ), then you're the one who sounds stupid, because it turns out that you are "calling him out" for something you believe yourself (belief without evidence).
I'm depressive cycle now, which makes me unpleasant, I know this. But I have a point. We should not go around claiming our faith beliefs are elevated to 'truth', if we wish to be honest.
In my opinion, you do a pretty good job of representing your faith belief in a responsible manner. I accept your rebuke.
14 Jan '17 14:13
take a stand
Back to Top