Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
A Fine Example of Theocracy Indeed
Comments
-
Another example from the past few days is that Jakkass does not believe that gayness is biologically determined, he thinks it's a choice. That belief goes heavily against the available evidence but we would have to provide absolute proof to the contrary before he would change his mind (and even then it would be hit and miss) because he has made his decision based on the assumption that his version of god exists, an assumption which we as a race are not in a position to make.
It's especially dangerous when you hold onto your unsubstantiated beliefs over far more concrete evidence to the contrary. Just look at creationists for another perfect example0 -
-
What is the "something"?
The something depends. I gave the example of the jehovah's witnesses who are gambling with their lives that their version of god exists. That's a dangerous assumption to be making in anyone's books. I'd want to be pretty damn sure of something before I risked my life for it. That's a very dramatic example but there are millions of things like it. It could be as simple as the example above, where jakkass has made the mistake of taking the least substantiated piece of evidence over more concrete evidence.0 -
No I'm not certain if the christian God exists or not, that's the point. Until we know for sure one way or the other there is an inherent risk in basing a decision on his claims/rules, dedicating your life to him or relying on him for protection or to get something you want
. I'm not saying he doesn't exist, just that it's dangerous to assume that he does
Oh ye of little faith:)If a belief stands on its own merits then it doesn't matter where it came from, it just makes sense but the authority of the bible stems from the idea that there is an omnipotent being behind it.
Can you give an example.If you're doing something that's in the bible because you've thought about it and it makes sense then that's fair enough, it's a valid claim that just happens to be in the bible.
OK so it can be neutral.But if you're doing something because you think it's what god wants or because your thought processes have been influenced by your religion or you're relying on god for something you are taking a risk that he is not there, meaning you may have taken the wrong action or not taken necessary precautions because you thought you would be protected.
One of many many examples would be Jehovah's witnesses refusing blood transfusions
Jehovah Witnesses arent really mainstream in Ireland are they?So you don't automatically reject something because it came from a religion but it's dangerous to accept something just because it does
But lots of decisions arent exclusively religious. Take abortion or euthenasia you dont have to be religious to have objections on an ethical basis.
You can have ethical considerations.0 -
Can you give an example.Jehovah Witnesses arent really mainstream in Ireland are they?But lots of decisions arent exclusively religious. Take abortion or euthenasia you dont have to be religious to have objections on an ethical basis.
You can have ethical considerations.
I know lots of decisions aren't exclusively religious. The danger comes in with decisions that are exclusively or majority religious. You are taking the least substantiated evidence as if it was the most0 -
Advertisement
-
I gave the example of the jehovah's witnesses who are gambling with their lives that their version of god exists. That's a dangerous assumption to be making in anyone's books.
I agree as are all religions and institutions. Collective mind frames are never good.The something depends.
But on what? Are you anti-religion or anti-any idea that there is something at work out there...:)0 -
But on what? Are you anti-religion or anti-any idea that there is something at work out there...:)
This isn't even specifically about religion. Religion isn't the only area where this dodgy thinking happens. It's dangerous to make any decision based on an assumption that cannot be shown to be true. A secular example would be I wouldn't buy a car off someone just because they told me there was nothing wrong with it. I'd ask him to substantiate his claim
Edit: but as for "something out there", such a being makes no claims to be relied on and has no doctrine to follow so you can't really base decisions on what you think it might want because you have no way of knowing0 -
Here's one from the god delusion. Some kids in a school in israel were told a story from the bible where a guy is told by god to go into a city, kill all its inhabitants and keep the valuables for the church and they were all asked if it was the right thing to do. Without getting into too much detail the vast majority said it was. Then pupils in the same school were given the same story but it took place in china and none of them said it was the right thing to do. So lots of beliefs can stand on their own merit and if they are involved in religion they will still stand but sometimes religion overrides common sense. Think of the old quote"good people will tend to do good and bad people will tend to do bad but for good people to do bad things you need religion"
You are picking something from the God Delusion.Very unbiased book that:rolleyes:
Mainstream Christians have an allegorical reading of the bible and so do those of Jewish origan.Well no but it's an example of religion being dangerous because they're making an unfounded assumptionI know lots of decisions aren't exclusively religious. The danger comes in with decisions that are exclusively or majority religious. You are taking the least substantiated evidence as if it was the most
1972 there were 40 democratic countries according to the US state department and this is currently 123 out of 192 members of the United Nations.
But definitions of democracy vary.
This thread started with Iran -Western Democracies have Freedom Of Belief and assembly.So in a truly secular society you will still have shared belief systems as theyare inescapable.0 -
Religion is harmful pretty much because of the number of people who believe with absolute certainty something about which there is no certainty. In most things arguments can be settled through rational and reasonable debate but when two perfect holy books say contradictory things you've got yourself a problem. Even discounting the conflict it causes, people often dedicate their entire lives to something that is no more likely to be true than any of the other thousands of versions of the same claims.Well Hurin on the political party issue.Are there any political paries you supported who supported dodgy regimes in foreign countries?
Lets see it from the political angle?
Not a big supporter of any political party TBH, but I voted mostly for Labour and Higgins in the last election. I suppose Labour supported Stalin back in the 1920s?No I'm not certain if the christian God exists or not, that's the point. Until we know for sure one way or the other there is an inherent risk in basing a decision on his claims/rules, dedicating your life to him or relying on him for protection or to get something you want
. I'm not saying he doesn't exist, just that it's dangerous to assume that he does
No more dangerous than assuming that God doesn't exist.The something depends. I gave the example of the jehovah's witnesses who are gambling with their lives that their version of god exists. That's a dangerous assumption to be making in anyone's books. I'd want to be pretty damn sure of something before I risked my life for it.
That's the thing Sambo. The JWs who refuse transfusions are pretty damn sure of it. We aren't but that doesn't make a difference to them. We don't see the evidence that their idea of God exists but they do see the evidence.0 -
This isn't even specifically about religion. Religion isn't the only area where this dodgy thinking happens. It's dangerous to make any decision based on an assumption that cannot be shown to be true. A secular example would be I wouldn't buy a car off someone just because they told me there was nothing wrong with it. I'd ask him to substantiate his claim
Edit: but as for "something out there", such a being makes no claims to be relied on and has no doctrine to follow so you can't really base decisions on what you think it might want because you have no way of knowing
A secular example would be femisism and gender based models of domestic violence.
Really Sam if you need to attack "sacred cows" you need to be more daring.;)
Now if Richard Dawkins wanted to impress me with his daring and challenging mind he would publish "the Feminist Delusion".0 -
Advertisement
-
It's dangerous to make any decision based on an assumption that cannot be shown to be true.
Why is it dangerous?This isn't even specifically about religion.
OK so it's about "dodgy thinkining"? I totally agree by the way.Religion isn't the only area where this dodgy thinking happens.
So what constitutes dodgy thinking? Is it belief?I wouldn't buy a car off someone just because they told me there was nothing wrong with it. I'd ask him to substantiate his claim
Pretty logical and i guess if you bought it of him it would be "in good faith". As in you trust him?I'd ask him to substantiate his claim
He did. He did and you believe him, simple as thatEdit: but as for "something out there", such a being makes no claims to be relied on and has no doctrine to follow so you can't really base decisions on what you think it might want because you have no way of knowing
I guess my point is, that no one will ever know unless they experience it themselves. I mean i know the grand canyon exsists, but i don't really know. I've never been there. Sure i've seen the pictures and read the articles but i've never been. Yet it's there. In a way i trust what i'm told because someone "who knows better" told me so.
Why are the two realities so distant in your opinion on this?0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59277
I feel sorry for the people of Iran, it's disheartening to see what is happening. The news reports about it also seem quite disheartening due to what they are actually reporting and not reporting. I had a long discussion with one of my best friends(Iranian) at our birthday dinner the other night(yes we ahve the same birthday) and it's quite sad to hear about it from somebody with family there. Even his grandmother is out protesting. The army stated before the election they would step in and crush the reformed candidate if he tried to claim power, amongst other things, arrests, murders etc. He practically taught me their history from the 40's until now and it is not nice what religion has done to that country.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30611
No more dangerous than assuming that God doesn't exist.
Which god do you think would be the most dangerous to not believe in?That's the thing Sambo. The JWs who refuse transfusions are pretty damn sure of it. We aren't but that doesn't make a difference to them. We don't see the evidence that their idea of God exists but they do see the evidence.
This is true, but is it really evidence if only a select few can see it? Wouldnt real evidence by definition be visible to anyone?
On Topic: The video is shocking, it's bloody awful whats happening in and has happened to Iran, I think religion has a huge part to blame, fair enough theres heck of a lot of bad politics invlolved too, but oppression is that little bit easier when you have a religion to wield. Has anyone read/seen Persepolis? I've only rad the book, highly recommended.0 -
You are picking something from the God Delusion.Very unbiased book that:rolleyes:Mainstream Christians have an allegorical reading of the bible and so do those of Jewish origan.
You could equally say being a Vegetarian in an Eskimo Village in Alaska is dangerous.You can say the same with politics Democracy is a recent phenomonum.This seems off-topic. I was trying to point out that it is useless to make an argument based on the idea that the supernatural doesn't exist, when you are trying to talk to people who think that it does, like Hare Krishnas or Christians.
and that assuming he does can be dangerousNo more dangerous than assuming that God doesn't exist.
Unless you mean I'm risking my immortal soul?That's the thing Sambo. The JWs who refuse transfusions are pretty damn sure of it. We aren't but that doesn't make a difference to them. We don't see the evidence that their idea of God exists but they do see the evidence.
But this is my whole point. They are absolutely sure to the point where they're willing to die for their beliefs and, for example, if evidence is presented that appears to contradict their beliefs their first instinct will be to reject it. They hold onto their 'evidence' no matter how shaky it might be. As mickeroo says, real evidence would be visible to everyone. If they actually had enough evidence to be objectively sure then the god question would be answered and we would all be Jehovah's witnesses
They are 100% sure about something which it is currently impossible to be 100% sure about and that's where the danger comes in. What if they're wrong? At most one version of one religion in the world is right so the chances aren't good.So what constitutes dodgy thinking? Is it belief?I guess my point is, that no one will ever know unless they experience it themselves. I mean i know the grand canyon exsists, but i don't really know. I've never been there. Sure i've seen the pictures and read the articles but i've never been. Yet it's there. In a way i trust what i'm told because someone "who knows better" told me so.
Why are the two realities so distant in your opinion on this?
Sorry I'm a bit lost here. I think you're asking what's wrong with accepting something because someone who knows better told you it was true. That's called the argument from authority logical fallacy. Something should be accepted only if it can be shown to be true. You take no one's word for it. That was actually on a list of 'secular commandments' I saw somewhere
In reality, sometimes it's just not that important. Whether the grand canyon exists doesn't make any difference to my life but when I'm going to base an important decision on something it needs to be verified with a high degree of certainty0 -
Which god do you think would be the most dangerous to not believe in?This is true, but is it really evidence if only a select few can see it? Wouldnt real evidence by definition be visible to anyone?On Topic: The video is shocking, it's bloody awful whats happening in and has happened to Iran, I think religion has a huge part to blame, fair enough theres heck of a lot of bad politics invlolved too, but oppression is that little bit easier when you have a religion to wield. Has anyone read/seen Persepolis? I've only rad the book, highly recommended.0
-
Well just because it was in that book doesn't mean it's not true.
Well it doesnt but its hardly credible or supportive of your point.I don't understand your point for either of those
Mainstream Judeo-Christian beliefs dont operate like that and it would probably be an extremist or fundamentalist view but I am trying to point out that basing your argument on extremes of behaviour rather than the norm is disengenius.Sorry you can say what about democracy? That its beliefs are based on unfounded evidence? How's that?
That is not my point. The concept of democratic government worldwide is fairly recent. Iran is a theocracy so its "constitutional model" is based on a different philosophy.Many of the protestors are arguing for change within that "model".
YOU could equally have a tribal influences in a society or whatever but cultural beliefs even though they are reenforced by religious beliefs can exist without the religion.
So you could equally say that there are philosophical or cultural norms which exist in Iranian society that give rise to that.
The killer just could be some kind of a psycho ,nut or urban snyper.0 -
Dodgy belief is treating something as if it is proven when it is far from proven
What constitutes proof?
And how do you verify it? Who verifies it?
I mean i learned alot of things at school, based on the text in books and the word of my teachers.
Something should be accepted only if it can be shown to be true.
Again what constitutes truth?
And who's truth?
You take no one's word for it.
So you mean a reliable source?
What constitutes a reliable source? Science, i assume?0 -
In reality, sometimes it's just not that important.
I agree. But you assume the grand canyon exsists, like i do, but i couldn't be bothered going there, so for the moment i believe it exsists.needs to be verified with a high degree of certainty
With 90% certainty or 100% certainty. Complete certainty and a high degree of certainty are oceans apart. One is definite proof, and the other is not.0 -
If it is dangerous to make major decisions based on your religion, then it is equally dangerous to make major decisions based on your athiesm.
I don't see how my decision making process makes any difference until after I'm dead, when the existence of the after life then matters.I see no reason to think this. If we could all see your evidence, wouldn't we all be atheists? Also, there is the issue of different people seeing the same evidence and interpreting it different ways.Well it doesnt but its hardly credible or supportive of your point.Mainstream Judeo-Christian beliefs dont operate like that and it would probably be an extremist or fundamentalist view but I am trying to point out that basing your argument on extremes of behaviour rather than the norm is disengenius.
edit: btw it seems to me what you're saying is that mainstream religions are ok because they don't base their decisions on what the religion says and instead make up their own mindWhat constitutes proof?
And how do you verify it? Who verifies it?
I mean i learned alot of things at school, based on the text in books and the word of my teachers.
What constitutes proof is fairly obvious I would have thought and I'm not sure why you're asking me to define it. Proof is when it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that something is true. It's not necessarily science but that's generally the best way to prove things. If I wanted to prove the grand canyon exists I could just book a flight but there is no way for me to verify the claims of any religion.That is not my point. The concept of democratic government worldwide is fairly recent. Iran is a theocracy so its "constitutional model" is based on a different philosophy.Many of the protestors are arguing for change within that "model".
YOU could equally have a tribal influences in a society or whatever but cultural beliefs even though they are reenforced by religious beliefs can exist without the religion.
So you could equally say that there are philosophical or cultural norms which exist in Iranian society that give rise to that.
The killer just could be some kind of a psycho ,nut or urban snyper.
Think of it this way: There have been thousands of gods throughout history. Nowadays there are fewer but there are still many mutually exclusive gods. I don't know whether the catholics or the protestants or the presbyterians or the methodists or the calvinists or the mormons or the jehovah's witnesses or the scientologists or the shia muslims or the sunni muslims or the hindus or the jews (etc) are right but I know one thing for sure: a maximum of one of them is right. Personally I think none of them are right but at most one is right.
This means that I can definitively say that billions of people have spent their lives praying to, relying on, interpreting the wishes of, dedicating their lives to and making decisions based on the idea of a God that does not exist. I cannot say which of the billions has done this because we have no way of knowing who is right but the fact is billions have done it.
Can you not see how it is potentially harmful to have so many people living their lives absolutely believing in something that does not exist? The only way it's not harmful is if their God definitely does exist but we cannot say that with any confidence0 -
I agree. But you assume the grand canyon exsists, like i do, but i couldn't be bothered going there, so for the moment i believe it exsists.
With 90% certainty or 100% certainty. Complete certainty and a high degree of certainty are oceans apart. One is definite proof, and the other is not.
The level of certainty depends on the level of risk you're taking. If you're going to ask God for something without any expectation of getting it, it doesn't really matter whether he exists or not but if you're going to dedicate your life to the priesthood or allow yourself to die instead of getting a blood transfusion the standard of evidence rises significantly.
Maybe the grand canyon is a bad example because except in some philosophical way we know it exists, it doesn't require faith and so is not comparable to religious belief. It has already been proven. A more practical example would be a friend asking you to invest in a business. If he asks you to put in €100 you'd probably just trust him and hand it over but if he asked for €100,000 you'd verify his claims if you had any sense, no matter how much you trusted him no?0 -
Advertisement
-
Actually I consider it a very credible source. You might not agree with his opinions but that story is not an opinion, he is telling us the results of a test that was done. Are you suggesting he's lying and the test never took place?
I think you are missing my point. I dont doubt that it happened but if I create a test to get a result its hardly going to be independent.
Dawkins aint an objective bystander.I already said it was an extreme example to make a point. The problem with using standard examples from christianity is that, where you can clearly see the problem in the Jewish story, you won't necessarily see the same flaws in a christian example because you're making the very same assumptions.
I often see flaws in whats put out there as Christianity and it does not predjudice me. Many people who are believers do so Im not alone.How about my Jakkass example, who has made an assumption about the nature of gayness without looking at any of the evidence because his unsubstantiated, unproven holy book already tells him what should be the case? He holds it as the highest standard of evidence that all other claims must trump when it has no business being held in such high regard because it cannot be proven
I dont know what his religous affiliation is but its different to mine. THe temptation is to generalise about people who believe.What constitutes proof is fairly obvious I would have thought and I'm not sure why you're asking me to define it. Proof is when it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that something is true. It's not necessarily science but that's generally the best way to prove things
Its scientific so it must be right. I just wonder when the concept of microwave technology was formed and when it was an idea in someones head or even electrons which were unproven and unproveable. Now we accept them without thinking.
In the same way you just dismiss a whole raft of stuff from God to ethics to philosophy just like that. Yet you accept other concepts.0 -
I think you are missing my point. I dont doubt that it happened but if I create a test to get a result its hardly going to be independent.
Dawkins aint an objective bystander.I often see flaws in whats put out there as Christianity and it does not predjudice me.I dont know what his religous affiliation is but its different to mine. THe temptation is to generalise about people who believe.Its scientific so it must be right. I just wonder when the concept of microwave technology was formed and when it was an idea in someones head or even electrons which were unproven and unproveable. Now we accept them without thinking.
In the same way you just dismiss a whole raft of stuff from God to ethics to philosophy just like that. Yet you accept other concepts.
Microwave energy and electrons were hypotheses until experiments showed them to be true. Before the nucleus and electron concept came about we had the plum pudding model of the atom but experimentation showed it to be incorrect. Electrons were at some stage unproven and unprovable but they were not accepted into mainstream science until that stopped being the case. For example the nucleus was proven by Rutherford's experiment. That's the difference between science and religion. Science encourages you to take nothing for granted and to test every theory even when some evidence points to it being true and a good scientist will eagerly drop an entire life's work if evidence proves his work wrong. Religion on the other hand encourages people to accept things without any supporting evidence and makes a virtue of doing so0 -
It irritates the hell out of me when I read PDN etc. attributing atheism to the collapse of the moral fabric in society and citing the Soviet Union, China etc. as examples.
I think the argument that the moderately religious are partly responsible for atrocities committed in the name of religion by extremists because the sheer amount of them make religion socially acceptable and paves the way for these extremists to rise to prominence is tenuous at best. It's also not an argument that's going to appeal to many religious people.0 -
you learned things from teachers and accepted them but the difference between that and religious beliefs is that if you so chose you could go and verify everything that your teachers told you because what they were saying was based on evidence.
My point is that what they told me is based on what they were told by someone else. And so on.
What they told me is based on evidence that someone else provided.
I see your point but there's a hole in in. Just as there is a hole in mine.With religious belief no such evidence exists.
What's the difference between what the teacher thought me at school and what a book in a church says. Both are based on the premise that what someone else says is the truth.
Unless you know for yourself then you never truly know.
Do you get what i mean? I mean everything is based on faith to some extent untill you experience it for yourself. Take being "in love". I believed it exsisted, but i never knew untill i felt it myself.Proof is when it can be said beyond a reasonable doubt that something is true.
How can something be definetly true if there is some residual doubt?but there is no way for me to verify the claims of any religion.
How do you know? Maybe it's as simple as booking a flight to the grand canyon. I mean you are going there because you think it exsists.
Faith.As I said, religion is not the only place where this dodgy reasoning exists, it's just the most prominent example of it.
Really, religion is the most prominent example of it?
Nazism, communism, western ideologies.
Actually if you look closely it is not only hardcore religions that are the proble. It is the collective mind-set in it's need for ideal and righteousness.
We are all responsible for the generation of this negative mind energy. You included with your steadfast stance in what you believe to be true.
If that's taken away from you, then what have you?
btw i mean that in the nicest way possible0 -
It irritates the hell out of me when I read PDN etc. attributing atheism to the collapse of the moral fabric in society and citing the Soviet Union, China etc. as examples.
I don't think PDN, not sure about who etc is:), ever says that. Anytime I've seen PDN use China or the Soviet Union as an example of atheist regimes, its usually in response to someone using an extreme religious group as an example of 'religion' at work. PDN 'doesn't' agree with this reasoning, and uses China and USSR etc, as an example of how we 'could' use the same dishonest tactic if we wanted to flame 'atheism'. The fact is, 'he doesn't' believe that Stalin, or Hitler, or Mao etc etc, should be used as an example to flame atheists. Certainly though, when atheists are being dishonestly selective with who they use to exemplify 'religion', it is good to show how easy it is to use the same dishonest means against an atheist.
PDN may correct me, but I'm almost sure this is his position.0 -
My point is that what they told me is based on what they were told by someone else. And so on.
What they told me is based on evidence that someone else provided.
I see your point but there's a hole in in. Just as there is a hole in mine.Do you get what i mean? I mean everything is based on faith to some extent untill you experience it for yourself. Take being "in love". I believed it exsisted, but i never knew untill i felt it myself.Really, religion is the most prominent example of it?
Nazism, communism, western ideologies.
Actually if you look closely it is not only hardcore religions that are the proble. It is the collective mind-set in it's need for ideal and righteousness.We are all responsible for the generation of this negative mind energy. You included with your steadfast stance in what you believe to be true.
If that's taken away from you, then what have you?
btw i mean that in the nicest way possible
If my steadfast stance is shown to be wrong, I will have the truth0 -
Dawkins didn't do the test, he just referenced it. This is an example of what I'm talking about. I have told you that this test took place and your first instinct is to reject it, to look for ways to debunk it because it reflects unfavourably on something you hold dear. That is not an objective approach.
I often see studies where secondary data is used as proof and this is quite common in the social sciences.What do you mean?
If someone tells me that they believe X and gives a religious argument I will weigh it up and not blindly accept it so I have free will. I am also human so I have the same flaws as everyone else.
I do not expect others to follow my beliefs.Seems to me what you're saying there is that not all religious people make decisions based on their religious beliefs. So religion is fine as long as you don't really believe it.
People's moral and ethical decisions are influenced by their religious beliefs.
Believers also have political beliefs. I believe in democracy and the rule of law also. My religion will influence me on who I vote for based on their policies.That's the difference between science and religion. Science encourages you to take nothing for granted and to test every theory even when some evidence points to it being true. Religion on the other hand encourages people to accept things without any supporting evidence and makes a virtue of doing so
So what you are saying is that you are a skeptic and thats your world view and on the basis of your skepticism others beliefs aren't valid.0 -
The difference is that, while the teachers are telling you something based on evidence that someone else provided, the priests are telling you something based on no evidence whatsoever. Until I go and verify it for myself the concepts are similar but I know that I can go and verify what the teacher told me and I have quite often done so. I have asked for verification of religious claims countless times and all I get is "the smile of a baby" and similar cop outs
I am not defending religion here, rather the indiviuals abilitiy to know what is true for them. I am not religious, rather spiritual if we must attach labels.I can verify things with enough certainty to say they have been proven, or maybe just that they have been shown to be true with enough confidence that I can rely on them.
You trust the degree of proof. Nothing is ever certain unless it is proven so.
Again that is faith and self-belief.There is a massive difference between accepting something without looking at the evidence and accepting something when no evidence exists.
There is also a massive difference between being certain and almost certainI'm talking about the dangers of assuming something to be true when we cannot know if it is or not
Following your logic, you can know something is true when we have proof beyond reasonable doubt? But i asked you , how can something be entirely true if there is a degree of doubt?
If evidence is so important, then why isn't full evidence so important?
If the presence of proof is so important, then why isn't absence of entire proof so important.If my steadfast stance is shown to be wrong, I will have the truth
But you are not right or wrong. That is the point0 -
I often see studies where secondary data is used as proof and this is quite common in the social sciences.If someone tells me that they believe X and give a religious argument I will weigh it up and not blindly accept it so I have free will. I am also human so I have the same flaws as everyone else.
I do not expect others to follow my beliefs.People's moral and ethical decisions are influenced by their religious beliefs.
Believers also have political beliefs. I believe in democracy and the rule of law also. My religion will influence me on who I vote for based on their policies.So what you are saying is that you are a skeptic and thats your world view and on the basis of your skepticism others beliefs aren't valid.
No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's invalid to operate on the assumption that your particular version of god exists when it is currently impossible to verify that.0 -
Advertisement
-
I am not defending religion here, rather the indiviuals abilitiy to know what is true for them. I am not religious, rather spiritual if we must attach labels.
But you are not right or wrong. That is the pointThere is also a massive difference between being certain and almost certain
Following your logic, you can know something is true when we have proof beyond reasonable doubt? But i asked you , how can something be entirely true if there is a degree of doubt?
If evidence is so important, then why isn't full evidence so important?
If the presence of proof is so important, then why isn't absence of entire proof so important.0
Advertisement