On 07 Dec 2013, at 19:59, meekerdb wrote:
On 12/7/2013 12:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.
No, it's a simple matter of using different words for different
things and not muddling the distinction. The Abrahamic religions
make a positive virtue of faith:
"Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of
his Reason."
--- Martin Luther
Every machine who want to be simply correct with herself cannot not
tear her eyes out of his Reason, or if you prefer, cannot avoid
discovering the gap between Truth and Proof.
Now, of course, I can recognize that Luther sentence can also be
exploited by "politics", and that is the whole weakness of theology.
But that is a reason to be even more rigorous in that field, not less.
A good course in non confessional theology could list the drawback of
the theological faith, when blind.
“When we come to believe, we have no desire to believe anything
else, for we begin by believing that there is nothing else which we
have to believe…. I warn people not to seek for anything beyond
what they came to believe, for that was all they needed to seek
for. In the last resort, however, it is better for you to remain
ignorant, for fear that you come to know what you should not
know…. Let curiosity give place to faith, and glory to salvation.
Let them at least be no hindrance, or let them keep quiet. To know
nothing against the Rule [of faith] is to know everything.” ---
Tertullian
Same remark, but here, the "politics" idea seems prevalent (and is
bad). the idea to separate science from theology is responsible for
such use of "bad faith".
Today, after listening to the machines, we would say the contrary.
Like "if you have faith, never drop reason, as reason can only be
extended by faith, and never been contradicted. If you feel a
contradiction, ask yourself if you have not been abuse by some
politics who want to manipulate you."
"Those who object to the punishment of heresy are like dogs
and swine,"
--- John Calvin
Authoritative argument, I guess.
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".
Events that were justified and approved by theologians.
Rational Theologians have been persecuted, exiled, banished from
science and academies. That is why there are "pseudo-theologians"
approving authoritative violent method of convicting people. That
would stop when we will decide to come back on a bit of seriousness on
the issue. That cannot be done in one day, but listening to the
machine will help. They have very few prejudice, and can hardly be
said to defend a religion, except for their belief in classical logic,
but nome forbid to also listening to intuitionist machine if they
want. (That does not make much sense in Platonism, though, and is
equivalent with listening only to the first person (SAGrz) associated
to the machine, and not to the "scientist" (G) associated to the
machine).
Blind faith is a remnant of terrorist politics, like the religion
has become on some ground.
No it's a remnant of religion - which inspires and justifies
terrorist politics.
A remnant of pseudo-religion, due to the fact that we are not yet free
to think in that aera. It is forbidden by atheists and fundamentalist
alike.
Brent
"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages
violence."
Anyone who make fuzzy overgeneralization encourages violence indeed.
Some branches of Islam are notoriously intolerant, and I condemn them
with vigor, but Christians have also gone through quite violent
periods, and it is up to the believers in some institution to save the
tolerance, if they want to save their institutions.
The modern catholic clergy is not in so good health either, and
beside, once you separate theology from the religious institution, it
will be simpler to prevent the use of pseudo-religion as an instrument
of hate, and it will be more natural to focus on the important common
point between all religions/theologies, including the machine's one.
Bruno
--Spokeswoman for General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, on Friday,
September 15, 2006, commenting on recent remarks generally construed
as anti-Islamic, by Pope Benedict XVI
--
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.
