Rant and rave about religion etc.

[Cargést]

Off-shoot from the "Connection between liberalism and environmental devestation?" thread, so that Umbrage can keep maintaining that he is, was, and always will be in the right, on all matters.

You are directly claiming that somehow "truth" is on your side.

No I'm not, I'm stating the truth.  Language works because we use the same words to mean the same things.  You used a word to mean a different thing.  This is wrong.

Rage

Christianity is a religion.  Not all religions are Christianity.  Now that you've finally understood this, revise your original statements so that they're no longer false, and then we're fine.

"absolute evidence that every single religion that has ever existed has had an adverse effect on scientific advancement throughout time, in a similar way to Christianity during the Dark Ages/Renaissance"

This is obviously what I was asking for, given my original position on the matter.  Don't pretend that you didn't understand that from what I said, but were/are too stubborn to admit that you were negligent in using the term "religion" when you didn't mean it.

I could pick apart this lovely piece of rage, and bring up a plethora of points which would categorically "win" me this "argument", but, amazingly, I have better things to do.

Why are people being so incredibly anal in this thread anyway? I have an opinion that's slightly different from yours, so the fuck what? I think I already made it clear that I'm not some "derp-religion-is-the-cause-of-all-wars-lets-try-secular-humanism-instead" type of atheist. Yet some of you are jumping up and down at every opportunity to call me one. And for what? Because you can't argue against philosophy being more versatile than religion? Because deep down you are aware that religion is based on philosophy and not the other way around? Because you can't argue that religious icons have largely been replaced with pop-icons, and the religious icons that are still prevalent in society have even been turned into pop-icons, and this in turn proves that humans don't essentially need religion, not even as a way to control the people?

I'm not calling you an atheist of any sort, personally.  That's neither here nor there.  I'm merely making a point of information, originally more for your benefit, and the benefit of others, than anything.  I haven't read other people's posts on the matter, so I wouldn't know what they say.  As far as I'm concerned, I noticed that you said something incorrect, and it was the same thing which I've seen others write, and so I commented on the fact that it is incorrect to conflate religion and Christianity, as per above.  For some reason, you took offense to this, and here we are.

Also, I follow Philosophy before I follow religion.  "Don't act like you know me because you obviously don't".

Religion is anti-intelligent by design.

Why, necessarily?

It seems to me that you dislike religion as a whole, for some bizarre reason (Judeo-Christianity being one of the most awful creations of the human race?).  If the latter is close to the mark, that's like someone disliking philosophy because they have a problem with Ayn Rand.

[Transcix]

If "religion" is taken to be necessarily faith-based then I can see how someone could think it's necessarily 'anti-intelligent'; many people use the term "spirituality" to refer to non-faith-based beliefs or at least less dogmatic beliefs in the divine. The argument that faith is counter to intelligence would go something along the lines of that if there is conclusive proof then there can be no faith, therefore conclusive proof is always rejected. Personally I think faith-based (right-hand) paths are fine, but it's definitely not the path I choose to take.

[Athanasius contra mundum]

Oh god, I'm having bad memories of the last thread that ran along these lines. That was about the time the forums took a nose-dive for failure. Still, the above comment was awesome, so maybe this will pan out.

[Cargést]

I have faith in the validity of the information that my senses are giving me.  It's only just occurred to me that empiricism is based on the belief that what we sense is true, and that that belief is unfounded, except that what we sense can be backed up by what others sense.

[Athanasius contra mundum]

I have faith in the validity of the information that my senses are giving me.  It's only just occurred to me that empiricism is based on the belief that what we sense is true, and that that belief is unfounded, except that what we sense can be backed up by what others sense.

Sounds like a quick path to delusion to me.

[Umbrage]

Off-shoot from the "Connection between liberalism and environmental devestation?" thread, so that Umbrage can keep maintaining that he is, was, and always will be in the right, on all matters.

You are directly claiming that somehow "truth" is on your side.

No I'm not, I'm stating the truth.  Language works because we use the same words to mean the same things.  You used a word to mean a different thing.  This is wrong.

Rage

Christianity is a religion.  Not all religions are Christianity.  Now that you've finally understood this, revise your original statements so that they're no longer false, and then we're fine.

"absolute evidence that every single religion that has ever existed has had an adverse effect on scientific advancement throughout time, in a similar way to Christianity during the Dark Ages/Renaissance"

This is obviously what I was asking for, given my original position on the matter.  Don't pretend that you didn't understand that from what I said, but were/are too stubborn to admit that you were negligent in using the term "religion" when you didn't mean it.

I could pick apart this lovely piece of rage, and bring up a plethora of points which would categorically "win" me this "argument", but, amazingly, I have better things to do.

Why are people being so incredibly anal in this thread anyway? I have an opinion that's slightly different from yours, so the fuck what? I think I already made it clear that I'm not some "derp-religion-is-the-cause-of-all-wars-lets-try-secular-humanism-instead" type of atheist. Yet some of you are jumping up and down at every opportunity to call me one. And for what? Because you can't argue against philosophy being more versatile than religion? Because deep down you are aware that religion is based on philosophy and not the other way around? Because you can't argue that religious icons have largely been replaced with pop-icons, and the religious icons that are still prevalent in society have even been turned into pop-icons, and this in turn proves that humans don't essentially need religion, not even as a way to control the people?

I'm not calling you an atheist of any sort, personally.  That's neither here nor there.  I'm merely making a point of information, originally more for your benefit, and the benefit of others, than anything.  I haven't read other people's posts on the matter, so I wouldn't know what they say.  As far as I'm concerned, I noticed that you said something incorrect, and it was the same thing which I've seen others write, and so I commented on the fact that it is incorrect to conflate religion and Christianity, as per above.  For some reason, you took offense to this, and here we are.

Also, I follow Philosophy before I follow religion.  "Don't act like you know me because you obviously don't".

Religion is anti-intelligent by design.

Why, necessarily?

It seems to me that you dislike religion as a whole, for some bizarre reason (Judeo-Christianity being one of the most awful creations of the human race?).  If the latter is close to the mark, that's like someone disliking philosophy because they have a problem with Ayn Rand.

I'm sorry but I can't help you with this. But here are some pictures of cute kittens to look at:

http://dummiesoftheyear.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/cute-kittenweee.jpg
http://www.innocentenglish.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/cute-kitten-laughing.jpg
http://www.majordojo.com/images/cute-kitten-picture-in-the-grass.jpg
http://www.funnyphotos.net.au/userimages/user756_1165365691.jpg

[nous]

The argument that faith is counter to intelligence would go something along the lines of that if there is conclusive proof then there can be no faith, therefore conclusive proof is always rejected.

Faith is a complex  subject. And you are right, some religious currents think like you described it above; but in general, faith does not work like this. Under normal conditions, faith means simply to follow the truth without having fully understood it.

You forget that most people don't have the mental capacities to understand all proofs. Or, like Frithjof Schuon said it, "with Plato you cannot save everybody. But with religion you can save the last man."

Or in the words of St Thomas:

Now as stated above (Article 4), it is impossible that one and the same thing should be believed and seen by the same person. Hence it is equally impossible for one and the same thing to be an object of science and of belief for the same person. It may happen, however, that a thing which is an object of vision or science for one, is believed by another: since we hope to see some day what we now believe about the Trinity, according to 1 Corinthians 13:12: "We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face": which vision the angels possess already; so that what we believe, they see. On like manner it may happen that what is an object of vision or scientific knowledge for one man, even in the state of a wayfarer, is, for another man, an object of faith, because he does not know it by demonstration.

[Cargést]

I have faith in the validity of the information that my senses are giving me.  It's only just occurred to me that empiricism is based on the belief that what we sense is true, and that that belief is unfounded, except that what we sense can be backed up by what others sense.

Sounds like a quick path to delusion to me.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not stating that I'm going to ignore the "real world", or anything like that.  I have nothing better to go on than the senses when it comes to understanding my environment, so I might as well base my understanding on what they tell me.  I still find it interesting that, as far as I've considered it, there isn't really any rational basis for believing that what we sense is real.  Plato's Cave, etc.

[Veritas]

I have faith in the validity of the information that my senses are giving me.  It's only just occurred to me that empiricism is based on the belief that what we sense is true, and that that belief is unfounded, except that what we sense can be backed up by what others sense.

Sounds like a quick path to delusion to me.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not stating that I'm going to ignore the "real world", or anything like that.  I have nothing better to go on than the senses when it comes to understanding my environment, so I might as well base my understanding on what they tell me.  I still find it interesting that, as far as I've considered it, there isn't really any rational basis for believing that what we sense is real.  Plato's Cave, etc.

Implying there is a "rational basis" for anything?

We are presented with a picture of the world, and we have no choice but to accept that our view is the correct view. Inter-subjective ("objective") interactions do the hard work for us, weeding out what works and what doesn't in accordance with natural law, or rather, natural lawlessness.

[JewishPhysics]

Faith is a complex  subject. And you are right, some religious currents think like you described it above; but in general, faith does not work like this. Under normal conditions, faith means simply to follow the truth without having fully understood it.

How do you obtain this truth if you can't understand it?  This is the question that always bothers me about this type of thinking.  I'd honestly like an answer.

You forget that most people don't have the mental capacities to understand all proofs. Or, like Frithjof Schuon said it, "with Plato you cannot save everybody. But with religion you can save the last man."

What exactly are you referring to when you say "all proofs?"  Do you just mean logical proofs generally, or is there something more specific you had in mind?

[Athanasius contra mundum]

I always interpreted faith as being a metaphysical understanding of reality as opposed to a materialistic one, and when I say metaphysical, I don't mean an understanding based in literal mythological symbols as much as an understanding of the pattern-structure of reality, or the principle of which the material is a manifestation.

[JewishPhysics]

I always interpreted faith as being a metaphysical understanding of reality as opposed to a materialistic one, and when I say metaphysical, I don't mean an understanding based in literal mythological symbols as much as an understanding of the pattern-structure of reality, or the principle of which the material is a manifestation.

A problem I see with this is that I think the idea of a clear cut distinction between metaphysical and material is essentially illusory.  We're talking about the same thing, like how chemistry is really just physics.  There is a practical distinction between the two, but they are ultimately the same.

[Athanasius contra mundum]

I agree with you, creating a distinction between the two is a failure to take all variables into account, but as I think you realize, that isn't what I'm referring to when I denote a difference between metaphysical understanding and materialistic understanding. I don't think that any sort of understanding can have a basis wholly divorced from reality.

[JewishPhysics]

I agree with you, creating a distinction between the two is a failure to take all variables into account, but as I think you realize, that isn't what I'm referring to when I denote a difference between metaphysical understanding and materialistic understanding. I don't think that any sort of understanding can have a basis wholly divorced from reality.

So essential we're in complete agreement?  We must be doing something wrong then.  Perhaps I should call you a fag or something.  Maybe you could belittle me in some way.

[Athanasius contra mundum]

In that case you've got the politics of the forums down quite nicely.