On 06 Dec 2013, at 19:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/6/2013 12:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Dec 2013, at 19:29, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/5/2013 1:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Dec 2013, at 13:13, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I repeat the cult of men to men is the most primitive and
dangerous religion. And RELIGION CAN NOT BE AVOIDED: you can not
live without a form of religion or religions like you can not
live alone.
This is just Paul Tilllich trick to convert everyone to religion
by redefining religion. People cannot live without trust - they
can live just fine without faith in religion.
Then why all that fuss by atheists when we show they need faith in
something beyond what they can prove.
First, because you didn't show that we need faith - only that we
need trust. Trust is different than faith; it is tested and earned.
That is a bit of a 1004 fallacy to me.
You identify faith with "blind faith". But "blind faith" is something
which exist because for centuries you were burn alive if you did not
have the "blind faith".
Blind faith is a remnant of terrorist politics, like the religion has
become on some ground.
Why atheists act so much like the pseudo-religious fellow?
Because you redefine 'religious' to try to sweep everybody into that
category.
Yes. All Löbian machine are religious. It is a non trivial theorem.
I might ask, if everybody is religious, then what use is the word -
if it conveys no distinction if is meaningless.
Not all machines are religious. Not all humans are religious. Some can
be religious but deny it, etc.
If atheists were a bit more agnostic on matter and possible
persons, they would applaud at the use of the religious terms in
science.
Atheists on this list are, like myself, agnostic about many things.
But not on spiritual matter apparently. When you do theology
scientifically, you need to be agnostic on god and spiritual answer.
We cannot do research if we pretend to have the answer.
But it would be foolish to believe in the gods of Olympus and the
god of Abraham and all those other Big Daddies in the Sky whose
worship is denominated "theism".
I have not found one book on theology which defends a big daddy in the
sky.
I have no met one christian who believe literally in the bible.
Why do they defend the peculiar authoritative use made by the
institutions?
The use is authoritative because it is ubiquitous; that's how
language is. I don't "defend" it. I look it up in the dictionary.
But you defend it de facto by refusing others to tackle the questions
with the scientific method. That makes both science and religion in
the club of pseudo-science. You participate to their myth that science
is opposed to theology or religion, which might not be completely true.
Bruno
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
