The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 16, 2021, 11:28:05 am
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Paul & Fred have reached a settlement with Stardock!

+  The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum
|-+  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release
| |-+  Starbase Café (Moderator: Death 999)
| | |-+  Cool Comic Booklets.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 20 Print
Author Topic: Cool Comic Booklets.  (Read 75018 times)
TiLT
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 260


To boldly go where no Spathi has dared go before


View Profile WWW
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #30 on: May 27, 2006, 08:22:28 pm »

No seriously. Everything that is wrong about the comic I linked to should be so blatantly obvious that there's no need to tell anyone about it unless they are hardwired to not understand. So there's no point in me trying to explain it to you, as you won't understand it anyway.
Logged
Nathanael
Zebranky food
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #31 on: May 27, 2006, 08:27:24 pm »

But the things in that tract are very possible.
Logged
Draxas
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1044



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #32 on: May 27, 2006, 08:50:51 pm »

Nathanael, you are completely and hoplessly brainwashed, I'm sorry to report. I didn't even read the comic, and I think it's wrong already; just the phrase "book burning" brings up memories of seeing video of Nazi bonfires from the time of the war. How any rational, thinking person can condone something like that is beyond my grasp of understanding, unless they are making a totalitarian grab at power. So yeah, either evil, or just stupid.

I think that's all I'm willing to contribute to this discussion. I've already discussed religion with you in several other topics; go reread those for my take on the subject. And just as a refresher, I'm a scientist and a Jew, and proud to say that I don't find the two in conflict with each other (much). Could you say the same thing? I highly doubt it.
Logged
TiLT
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 260


To boldly go where no Spathi has dared go before


View Profile WWW
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #33 on: May 27, 2006, 09:31:30 pm »

But the things in that tract are very possible.

You are either brainwashed, a troll, or both. Either way, I'm done with this thread.
Logged
Nathanael
Zebranky food
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #34 on: May 27, 2006, 09:33:07 pm »

I dont find any science conflict with the Bible.
When its real science thats proven.

Take the Theory of Evolution for example they try to teach it in schools. Now Whats the most important word in that title? "Theory"

U call ureself a scientist yet u didnt even read the tract and ure against it? I thought Science was about facts? But u dont even give it a chance.

Logged
Halleck
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 750


Personal Text


View Profile WWW
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #35 on: May 27, 2006, 09:43:28 pm »

Halleck u gotta remember it isnt Gods fault that Lot's daughters fornicated with Lot. Remember King David as well commited murder and Adultery. And the Bible records it, that doesnt mean it condones it though.

Now what really confuses me is that Jews might not believe the New Testament they do believe the Old testament. And u tried attacking the Bible with something from the Old Testament.
You're getting me wrong.  I wasn't trying to attack the bible, only to demonstrate that it can be ten times as gruesome and disturbing as stuff like D&D or Harry Potter.  Smiley

Also... I don't "believe" the old testament in the sense of blindly accepting every word written in it. I see it (the torah or tanach as we call it) as a collection of many centuries worth of collected wisdom and advice codified into law, along with semihistorical accounts, moral tales, and legends. You have to remember it was kept as oral history long before it was ever written down, and stories that are re-told over generations tend to change and get larger than life.

The thing is, some of that stuff just doesn't apply anymore. The torah portion I studied for my Bar Mitzvah, for instance. It said you should not touch chameleons because they are unclean. If a chameleon falls on your earthenware, you must shatter it. If it touches you, you must wash and will not be clean until evening. You are not allowed to eat shellfish, or anything that either doesn't chew its cud or doesn't have cleft hooves. However, certain kinds of grasshopers are clean, and you are permitted to eat them.

It says that men who have injured genitals will not be allowed "into the house of the lord".
It says that if you own a hebrew slave, you must let him go after a certain period of time. If he does not want to go, you must drive an awl through his ear into the door and proclaim him yours forever.
It says that if your brother is married and dies without bearing children, you must offer to marry his wife (your stepsister.) If you don't want to marry her, she must publically spit on you and beat you with a shoe.

It gives advice for when to stone your entire family. It condones the mass slaughtering of enemies and unbelievers. It says that you can't shave off the sides of your head or the sides of your beard. It says you can't yoke an ox and a donkey together.

At best, some of this stuff just doesn't apply anymore. At worst, some of it is clearly immoral by modern standards (genocide.) What I try to take away from the bible is the wisdom and morality contained within its stories. I do not blindly accept it as infallible.

Take the Theory of Evolution for example they try to teach it in schools. Now Whats the most important word in that title? "Theory"
Oh please... don't even start on that intelligent design bullshit.
In science, "theory" mean's we're pretty damn sure. Not like in other things, like me saying "my theory is that if I wake up on the left side of the bed I'm going to have a better day."
« Last Edit: May 27, 2006, 09:51:27 pm by Halleck » Logged


Currently working on: Going outside more

Game projects: Vega Strike / Elite Strike
Nathanael
Zebranky food
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 15



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #36 on: May 27, 2006, 10:24:14 pm »

Well right now im not too studied into Jewish law. So im not gonna fight that "FOR NOW"

Excuse me Science is based on Exacts and theories. And what are u saying "intelligent design Bullshit?" Do u not believe in God? Why do u do all those rituals then?
Logged
Arne
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 520


Yak!


View Profile WWW
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #37 on: May 27, 2006, 11:23:59 pm »

WHAT???...you mean I stoned my entire family to death all for nothing??? Doh!

I'm just really slow at getting some stuff. Yesterday I finally realized that Pin-Up means to put up on the wall with a pin. I always thought it was something with the pose of the girl looking 'pinned'-up somehow. Also, for the longest time I thought Troll meant.. well, you know the big creature thing, but then I realized it's actually a fishing term... I used to fish by trolling so it's strange how I never got it until just recently. Of course, being Swedish means that I'm indoctrinated with English from the media, sometimes without knowing what stuff mean or come from, then I never get around to questioning it.

...well look at me, I'm just babbling my time away... now if you excuse me, I'm burning an ox in my garden, I think I'm going to put it out. God really needs to be better at writing clear and concise memos for his updates. What's next, my slaves are not my property?
« Last Edit: May 27, 2006, 11:37:50 pm by Arne » Logged
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1387



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #38 on: May 28, 2006, 12:48:50 am »

Quote
now if you excuse me, I'm burning an ox in my garden, I think I'm going to put it out.

You could always eat him, he's got hooves with no split or whatnot.


Quote
What's next, my slaves are not my property?

Depends, are they D&D players?
Logged
Halleck
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 750


Personal Text


View Profile WWW
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #39 on: May 28, 2006, 02:19:26 am »

Well right now im not too studied into Jewish law. So im not gonna fight that "FOR NOW"
Need a reference? Try The Bible. Old Testament, Books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus.

Quote
Excuse me Science is based on Exacts and theories. And what are u saying "intelligent design Bullshit?" Do u not believe in God? Why do u do all those rituals then?
If you'd like to know what I think about intelligent design, read this paper:
http://eliot.bambi.net/eliot/Personal/intel_design_web.pdf

I tried to research and present both sides of the issue as fully as possible, but I could not come to any conclusion other than the fact that intelligent design is a load of crap.

I'm fine with people believing whatever they want. I'm fine with creationists, even. If they decide to ignore the findings of modern science, that's their choice. But when they try to inflict those beliefs upon others... or, in the case of intelligent design, market it as science and try to get it taught in public school as if it were science, I get pissed off. Doesn't anybody remember about seperation of church and state?

And please do not respond until you've at least skimmed my paper. I do present the case for intelligent design, I just don't agree with it.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2006, 02:26:53 am by Halleck » Logged


Currently working on: Going outside more

Game projects: Vega Strike / Elite Strike
Novus
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1938


Fot or not?


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #40 on: June 09, 2006, 11:44:39 pm »

1. Fornication
 1 Corinthians 6:18 "Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body."

2. Adultery
 Exodus 2:14 "Thou shalt not commit adultery"
 Matthew 5:27-28 "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath commited adultery with her already in his heart."

3. Homesexuality
 Leviticus 18:22 "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination"
Out of Nathanael's arguments, this one seemed the most well founded, so I did some more digging around on the subject.

It took a while to sort out my church's position on these matters, but 1 Corinthians is pretty clear on the subject (essentially "Don't have sex. If you must have sex, marry someone of the opposite sex and have sex with him/her only until death do you part."), and is used to justify promoting heterosexual marriage over other sexual relationships; however, it is usually read more as a suggestion to favour traditional marriage than as an outright prohibition against e.g. same-sex relationships.

Lutheran churches in e.g. Sweden go further by actually blessing same-sex "marriages" (although they tend to avoid the term); in Finland this is still being debated. This weaker interpretation of 1 Corinthians 6-7 seems to be justified mostly by the tenet of "reinterpreting the Bible to fit modern society" (essentially, mixing modern liberalism with Christianity). Arguably, Nathanael's position in this matter is the Christian position, especially if you take the Bible to define Christianity. Besides, changing your values to fit society's norms sounds more like pragmatic populism to me than pure faith.

In conclusion, I'd say that faith, although not very useful in deciding what is factually right or wrong, is, in some form at least, necessary to tell what is morally right or wrong. In other words, morals must have an axiomatic foundation; they can not be based on observation alone.
Logged

RTFM = Read the fine manual.
RTTFAQ = Read the Ur-Quan Masters Technical FAQ.
Lance_Vader
Frungy champion
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #41 on: June 19, 2006, 07:58:31 pm »

It took a while to sort out my church's position on these matters, but 1 Corinthians is pretty clear on the subject (essentially "Don't have sex. If you must have sex, marry someone of the opposite sex and have sex with him/her only until death do you part."), and is used to justify promoting heterosexual marriage over other sexual relationships; however, it is usually read more as a suggestion to favour traditional marriage than as an outright prohibition against e.g. same-sex relationships.
1 Corinthians doesn't tell people, from what I understand, not to have sex, just not to fornicate or commit adultery (which are used almost interchangably in the Bible).  The fact that this is used as an argument in favor of homosexual marriage disturbs me, and says nothing more, as far as I am concerned, says nothing more than that point of view lacks a better biblical argument.  I'm not saying you or they can't believe this, but that it is extrabiblical, and you'd do better admitting it. 

That brings me to a point I'd like to bring up.  It seems to me that, these days, any church you name is allergic to non-biblical references.  Just like some so-called "scientists" reject anything with the word "Bible" in it, there are many religionists who reject anything that doesn't contain that same word.

Why is this?  I think it's because people have stopped speaking to the Lord.  Not that He doesn't want to talk to them any more (and if you believe in just about any scripture, you believe that He talked once to men), but that many religionists and sectarian priests aren't listening any more.  It's like they believe He spoke, but does not speak.

As for the scientists, I think they are just scared of religion because they don't understand it and they don't want to look like preachers.


Lutheran churches in e.g. Sweden go further by actually blessing same-sex "marriages" (although they tend to avoid the term); in Finland this is still being debated. This weaker interpretation of 1 Corinthians 6-7 seems to be justified mostly by the tenet of "reinterpreting the Bible to fit modern society" (essentially, mixing modern liberalism with Christianity). Arguably, Nathanael's position in this matter is the Christian position, especially if you take the Bible to define Christianity. Besides, changing your values to fit society's norms sounds more like pragmatic populism to me than pure faith.
There are some rules that don't apply to a modern society, but a lot of those rules apply to all society, and it takes wisdom and revelation to understand which is which.  I think that this particular rule was intended for all time.

You see, there are some transgressions that are wrong because of the law, not by any moral imperative.  It is not morally evil to drive on the left side of the road... but you'd better not do it in my country!  The law forbids it, and it is quite dangerous.  Is it wrong to drive on the left side of the road?  Only where the law tells you to drive on the right side of the road.

There are other laws that are backed by a more eternal principle.  Is it ever right to murder, to shed innocent blood?  I could argue a time when it is appropriate to kill (someone is tring to kill innocent people, for example, and I can't stop him otherwise), but I can't see that the shedding of innocent blood is ever right.  Is it ever right to steal?  To be unfaithful to one's spouse?  I don't believe it ever is.  Ever.  These are rules that should not sway with the society in which one lives, and changing them is populism, as mentioned above.  I consider this to be wretchedly evil because it can lead so easily to other things.

In conclusion, I'd say that faith, although not very useful in deciding what is factually right or wrong, is, in some form at least, necessary to tell what is morally right or wrong. In other words, morals must have an axiomatic foundation; they can not be based on observation alone.
Amen on that last part.  Though I think most people on earth don't have a clue what faith is.

Faith, to me, denotes both motive and action, not mere belief.  I believe that God will reward me when I obey His laws, and I do so.  Now I can say that I have faith, because I trust this principle enough to act on it.  Violation of either belief or action destroys faith.

This means that everyone has faith in something.  Not necessarily in Jesus Christ, but maybe in the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow.  I can't KNOW (and I'm using a more philosophical definition of KNOW) by human reason that the sun will rise tomorrow, no matter what anyone says.  The fact that it has risen in the past is no indication of future performance.  However, it is not practical to believe that some unknown and hideously powerful force will disrupt the order of this occurence tonight, so we prepare for tomorrow as though it were a reality already.  We make the bed in the morning, expecting to come back that night and sleep in it.  We post notes on the internet, trusting that others will read them.  We read the other notes, trusting that they come from other people.

Without faith, we wouldn't do anything, not for a lack of capability, but a lack of motive.  We certainly wouldn't plant seeds with the faith that they would grow into plants that we could one day eat.  Faith is the belief in things which are not seen, combined with the ensuing action.

If you're still reading this, bravo.  I know it's a long polemic, but it annoys me to see people abusing words so fundamentally important to intelligent discourse on this subject.

Yes, I am Christian (in case the rest of the post didn't give it away).  No, I don't like Jay Chick because he attacks my specific group of Christians (I think we're not "Christian" enough for him.  I guess "Christian" is redefined in his mind as those who share his liberally narrow, literal, and uninspiring interpretation of the Bible and other scriptures), and because he attacks others without provocation.  He even goes so far as to lie and decieve people about all these groups.  Criticism can be good, but not when combined with slanderous remarks (I know, it's libel, really) and with fantastic deceptions.  Unacceptable behavior from anyone, much less someone who professes fellowship with Christ.
Logged
Novus
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1938


Fot or not?


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #42 on: June 20, 2006, 01:35:41 am »

1 Corinthians doesn't tell people, from what I understand, not to have sex, just not to fornicate or commit adultery (which are used almost interchangably in the Bible).  The fact that this is used as an argument in favor of homosexual marriage disturbs me, and says nothing more, as far as I am concerned, says nothing more than that point of view lacks a better biblical argument.  I'm not saying you or they can't believe this, but that it is extrabiblical, and you'd do better admitting it. 
Huh? Please reread what I wrote and 1 Cor 7:8-9. I don't see anyone suggesting that 1 Cor 7-8 is pro-homosexuality; I said that it promotes heterosexuality over other forms.

Quote
Why is this?  I think it's because people have stopped speaking to the Lord.  Not that He doesn't want to talk to them any more (and if you believe in just about any scripture, you believe that He talked once to men), but that many religionists and sectarian priests aren't listening any more.  It's like they believe He spoke, but does not speak.
An interesting interpretation.

Quote
As for the scientists, I think they are just scared of religion because they don't understand it and they don't want to look like preachers.
Religion and science are essentially two opposite ways of looking at the universe. Science, in a nutshell, deals with forming theories about how things are and work and testing these theories through practical observation and experiment. For a theory to be useful, it has to predict something that can be tested and verified; specifically, the theory must be falsifiable. A theory that cannot be disproved by observation is also a useless theory (no matter what happens, the theory still holds).

If you have an omnipotent entity (e.g. the Christian God), anything is possible if he wants it. There's no way to disprove God through observation, because He could have created anything we observe. Also, anything we think we know can be overridden by His whim.

Scientists react to this in many ways, such as:
  • Rejecting religion.
  • Rejecting science.
  • Accepting science as a set of rules of thumb for practical life and religion as a description of the underlying system.

Quote
You see, there are some transgressions that are wrong because of the law, not by any moral imperative.  It is not morally evil to drive on the left side of the road... but you'd better not do it in my country!  The law forbids it, and it is quite dangerous.  Is it wrong to drive on the left side of the road?  Only where the law tells you to drive on the right side of the road.
The way I see it, endangering people is morally wrong ("evil", if you prefer), which means that driving on the wrong side of the road is (more or less, depending on traffic) wrong. Law is merely a formalisation of this; a set of practical guidelines defined by a society to indicate what a society considers moral and how it enforces this behaviour.

Quote
There are other laws that are backed by a more eternal principle.  Is it ever right to murder, to shed innocent blood?  I could argue a time when it is appropriate to kill (someone is tring to kill innocent people, for example, and I can't stop him otherwise), but I can't see that the shedding of innocent blood is ever right. 
I certainly can't think of any convincing scenario to justify that sort of thing.

Quote
Is it ever right to steal?
I think you could make quite a good case for stealing bread to feed your starving children, especially from people directly involved in maintaining an oppressive regime that is directly responsible for the starvation in question. This is not, to my knowledge, an uncommon scenario. In a civilised society, though, such situations should not IMO occur.

Quote
To be unfaithful to one's spouse?  I don't believe it ever is.  Ever.
This one is harder to justify, although a strict preference utilitarian would probably argue that you should go right ahead if it makes you and your partner in crime feel good and your spouse never catches on. Personally, I think this is a good reason not to marry a strict preference utilitarian.

Quote
These are rules that should not sway with the society in which one lives, and changing them is populism, as mentioned above.  I consider this to be wretchedly evil because it can lead so easily to other things.
And that's basically what this discussion is all about. Is 1 Cor 7 a set of suggestions for better living, or a set of strict rules that must be followed to the letter to avoid damnation? Many differences between different forms of Christianity can be reduced to this sort of question. Your stance is, at least, quite clear.

Quote
Amen on that last part.  Though I think most people on earth don't have a clue what faith is.

Faith, to me, denotes both motive and action, not mere belief.  I believe that God will reward me when I obey His laws, and I do so.  Now I can say that I have faith, because I trust this principle enough to act on it.  Violation of either belief or action destroys faith.
Exactly. Once you believe in something and have a set of values; a concept of right and wrong, actions flow from it. If you believe in God and accept His will as your moral compass, you will have a clear path set out for you to follow in many situations.

Quote
This means that everyone has faith in something.  Not necessarily in Jesus Christ, but maybe in the fact that the sun will rise tomorrow.
Actually, that describes quite well the fundamental belief of science: the Universe follows a set of rules. Science is all about figuring out what those rules are. I'm pretty sure the Sun will rise tomorrow, but, once you get down to the basics, it's only really an educated guess that I'm taking on faith. A guess with lots of empirical data behind it, and a necessary one for any sane life, but a guess nonetheless, just like you say.

Quote
Without faith, we wouldn't do anything, not for a lack of capability, but a lack of motive.  We certainly wouldn't plant seeds with the faith that they would grow into plants that we could one day eat.  Faith is the belief in things which are not seen, combined with the ensuing action.

If you're still reading this, bravo.  I know it's a long polemic, but it annoys me to see people abusing words so fundamentally important to intelligent discourse on this subject.
The word "faith" is used in different ways by different people; I use it in the neutral sense of "a belief that requires no evidence". For clarity, I'll capitalise your version of the word. Having Faith requires faith, but the opposite is not (necessarily) true.
Logged

RTFM = Read the fine manual.
RTTFAQ = Read the Ur-Quan Masters Technical FAQ.
Lance_Vader
Frungy champion
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #43 on: June 20, 2006, 11:22:09 pm »

Huh? Please reread what I wrote and 1 Cor 7:8-9. I don't see anyone suggesting that 1 Cor 7-8 is pro-homosexuality; I said that it promotes heterosexuality over other forms.
Ah.  I see.  My bad.
Quote
Religion and science are essentially two opposite ways of looking at the universe. Science, in a nutshell, deals with forming theories about how things are and work and testing these theories through practical observation and experiment. For a theory to be useful, it has to predict something that can be tested and verified; specifically, the theory must be falsifiable. A theory that cannot be disproved by observation is also a useless theory (no matter what happens, the theory still holds).

If you have an omnipotent entity (e.g. the Christian God), anything is possible if he wants it. There's no way to disprove God through observation, because He could have created anything we observe. Also, anything we think we know can be overridden by His whim.

Scientists react to this in many ways, such as:
  • Rejecting religion.
  • Rejecting science.
  • Accepting science as a set of rules of thumb for practical life and religion as a description of the underlying system.
Good observations.  I think that those who want to understand this better would do well to look at what certain Jewish, Muslim and Christian scholars did a thousand years ago to help incorporate Greek ideas into their science without destroying their relgion.  Some of them accepted both without trying to reconcile them, others did something similar to what you listed. 

As for myself, I think that religion and science are not simply two ways of looking at the same things, but I would go so far as to say that they are two points of view (not necessarily dissimilar) looking at entirely different things.  Science looks at the natural, and Religion at the supernatural.  Different religions are different points of view.  By this definition, of course, atheism (the dogmatic belief in no god or in nothing as a god) and agnosicism (the pragmatic, if perhaps lazy, view of ignorance as being acceptable) are religions, because they are ways of looking at the supernatural (denying its existence or its importance).  The creation of the earth is a great example.  Religion endeavors to know the creator, while science attempts to know the creator's methods.  Religion would know the purpose of its creation, while science is more concerned with the mechanics of its function.
Quote
The way I see it, endangering people is morally wrong ("evil", if you prefer), which means that driving on the wrong side of the road is (more or less, depending on traffic) wrong. Law is merely a formalisation of this; a set of practical guidelines defined by a society to indicate what a society considers moral and how it enforces this behaviour.
Right.  The point I was trying to make is that it doesn't matter which side of the road we drive on, as long as we all agree to drive on the same side.  It's a law created not because one side is morally superior to another, but because a civilized group of people require such an agreement.  Why the right side?  Why the left?  There is no moral imperative for a government to choose one over the other, but they had better choose one.
Quote
I think you could make quite a good case for stealing bread to feed your starving children, especially from people directly involved in maintaining an oppressive regime that is directly responsible for the starvation in question. This is not, to my knowledge, an uncommon scenario. In a civilised society, though, such situations should not IMO occur.
This is where we start getting into the debate of socially acceptable vs.  morally right.  IMO, it's vitally important to distinguish between the two, but that's because I don't trust society's moral judgment.  Societies have agreed to many heinous things in our history, even in our recent history, and I'm afraid that if people confuse the two, they will not speak out against society when it goes wrong.  I don't think it's morally right to steal, though I do acknowledge that, in our society, one could make a good case for it in situations like the one mentioned above.

Quote
Personally, I think this is a good reason not to marry a strict preference utilitarian.
Lol.
Quote
And that's basically what this discussion is all about. Is 1 Cor 7 a set of suggestions for better living, or a set of strict rules that must be followed to the letter to avoid damnation? Many differences between different forms of Christianity can be reduced to this sort of question. Your stance is, at least, quite clear.
Thank you.  If anyone needs clarification on what I think, I'll be in my office.

Quote
Actually, that describes quite well the fundamental belief of science: the Universe follows a set of rules. Science is all about figuring out what those rules are. I'm pretty sure the Sun will rise tomorrow, but, once you get down to the basics, it's only really an educated guess that I'm taking on faith. A guess with lots of empirical data behind it, and a necessary one for any sane life, but a guess nonetheless, just like you say.
Science is about figuring out the physical rules that govern us.

Religion is about the moral ones.

Both types are laws that you cannot actually defy.  Gravity, for example, must be taken into account when building a bridge.  An engineer who thinks to ignore it isn't doing anyone a favor.  Granted, the moral laws are less visible, but no less valid.

Quote
The word "faith" is used in different ways by different people; I use it in the neutral sense of "a belief that requires no evidence". For clarity, I'll capitalise your version of the word. Having Faith requires faith, but the opposite is not (necessarily) true.
Thank you for understanding what I'm saying.  Very few people on internet forums do that.

I would say that faith (as opposed to Faith) is a belief that requires no PROOF.  Belief does require some evidence, even if that evidence consists of someone else telling you that it's true, or a written scripture.  Since I consider those to be evidence, I would say that even faith requires evidence, and that Faith requires faith.  Perhaps this is what you meant already, but I'd like it to be clear.

Sometimes, I think that religion is hard to talk about because we lack the words to express all our ideas accurately and satisfactorily.
Logged
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1387



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #44 on: June 21, 2006, 05:58:35 am »

Quote
agnosicism (the pragmatic, if perhaps lazy, view of ignorance as being acceptable)

Is it really lazy to not be sure about something? If you are not sure whether you will live to 80 or not, does that make you lazy?

It really doesn't matter if one considers ignorance on a subject acceptable, if no body can prove which belief is the ignorant one. Besides, you can be plenty active in your explorations of other aspects of life (other than "supernatural" beings,) like deciding what one considers to be right or wrong in new, semi complex situations.


Quote
By this definition, of course, atheism (the dogmatic belief in no god or in nothing as a god) and agnosicism (the pragmatic, if perhaps lazy, view of ignorance as being acceptable) are religions, because they are ways of looking at the supernatural (denying its existence or its importance).

I think a religion is something that centers around the belief in supernatural being(s), so neither of those would rank as religions. Also, there are some Agnostics who are such because they simply don't know for certain, not because they don't think it is an important topic. Still others could be confused on what a god actually is supposed to be. The ancient Greek gods did not create the earth (the earth created them, in fact), they could be killed, and their eternal survival depended on Ambosia. The existence of this sort of being does not seem nearly as far fetched as an invisible, all powerful, all knowing, creator of everything that works somewhat cryptically through the natural world and a few prophets amoungst many false ones. There is a tremendous difference between these two definitions, requiring vastly different levels of faith.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2006, 06:02:13 am by Deus_Siddis » Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 20 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!