Page 4 of 12

Posted: July 30th, 2011, 1:45 pm
by Wooden shoe
Hello Enegue, you wrote:
That doesn't mean philosophy is not valuable. On the contrary, philosophers dwell in a world of ideas that provide necessary resources for those who ARE going somewhere, like religions.

Please explain where religion is going!
My sense of things is that most religions are in the business of keeping the world from moving foreword, don't like to be confused by facts.

Posted: July 30th, 2011, 2:20 pm
by enegue
Hi, Wooden shoe.
Wooden shoe wrote:Please explain where religion is going!
Well, I can't speak for other religions, or even for others of my own religion, but for me, the journey will ultimately end in the promised land, Paradise. In the meantime, I am being led on a journey through the wilderness of life, learning to: depend on God; exercise dominion over my flesh; and let go of things that prevent me from apprehending abundant life.
Wooden shoe wrote:My sense of things is that most religions are in the business of keeping the world from moving foreword, don't like to be confused by facts.
What do you mean by moving forward?

Cheers,
enegue

Posted: July 31st, 2011, 11:30 am
by Wooden shoe
Hello enegue.


The easy answer first. History is replete with religious entities fighting or repressing knowledge f it was or is believed it conflicts with writing which is 2000 or more years old.
Evidence? The teaching of intelligent design in science classes without any facts to back it up. The Vatican fighting any birth control or protection against the spread of aids.


And what you believe regarding any kind of afterlife or "soul" or "GOD" is your business,but stating it as fact is not fitting in a philosophy discussion simply because none of this can be backed up by facts.
If you preface these things with "I think" or "I believe" I would not question you.
If you stated a believe in Harry Potter being a real wizard, I might think it strange, however you are entitled to believe anything you wish.

Posted: July 31st, 2011, 5:20 pm
by enegue
Wooden shoe wrote:History is replete with religious entities fighting or repressing knowledge f it was or is believed it conflicts with writing which is 2000 or more years old.
Yes, I agree. However, religious entities also provided the means by which science could grow, libraries, education, printing, etc.
Wooden shoe wrote:Evidence? The teaching of intelligent design in science classes without any facts to back it up. The Vatican fighting any birth control or protection against the spread of aids.
How is the big bang theory any less a matter of faith than intelligent design? What facts are presented in science classes to prove it?

As far as I am aware, monogamous heterosexual sex is the best protection against aids there is. What about engaging in unprotected sex only when your wife desires it? The prospect of pregnancy is pretty effective as a birth control method. Nah, who cares for self-control.

Wooden shoe wrote:And what you believe regarding any kind of afterlife or "soul" or "GOD" is your business, but stating it as fact is not fitting in a philosophy discussion simply because none of this can be backed up by facts. I think you misunderstand the notion of
If you preface these things with "I think" or "I believe" I would not question you.
If you stated a believe in Harry Potter being a real wizard, I might think it strange, however you are entitled to believe anything you wish.
It is redundant to say "I think" or "I believe", because everything you utter is a thought or a belief. You only echo what you believe to be facts. How much of what you believe you know, is original thought?

How about we just assume that what transpires in these threads, from all contributors, is just personal opinion. That way we can determine for ourselves what are the good bits and bad bits.

Cheers,
enegue

Posted: July 31st, 2011, 5:50 pm
by Wooden shoe
Sorry Enegue, you need to take blinkers off and do a lot of reading, because at this time your vision is just to limited.

The spread of aids is much more common between hetero's at this time then in the homo community.

On the issue of intelligent design please read Richard Dawkins book "The greatest show on earth" and then we can talk again.

Also please read on the history of Europe and you will see how the various religious entities tried to keep knowledge from the masses and were against the printing press.

Re: Religion vs. Philosophy

Posted: July 31st, 2011, 6:01 pm
by Queen tina
cynicallyinsane wrote:What's the difference between religion and philosophy? Aren't they both the search for fundemental truths?
What the difference between believing and reasoning? The former is about perceived prejudice while the latter is about reasoning such prejudice to create change.

Posted: August 1st, 2011, 10:43 am
by enegue
Wooden shoe wrote:The spread of aids is much more common between hetero's at this time then in the homo community.
Well, I never. Here's an excerpt from an article at Medical Online

In the 1980s, many people had the misconception that Aids is just a gay disease. While the first people to be diagnosed with Aids were gay men, the disease soon spread into the heterosexual community.
Wooden shoe wrote:On the issue of intelligent design please read Richard Dawkins book "The greatest show on earth" and then we can talk again.
It would be easier if you just told me what facts you would present to a science class in support of the Big Bang. It is simple enough, isn't it?
Wooden shoe wrote:Also please read on the history of Europe and you will see how the various religious entities tried to keep knowledge from the masses and were against the printing press.
Your lack of objection to the other contributions of the church is noted. In regard to printing: yes, the church did try to keep knowledge from the masses, BUT, what was the first major book printed and still is the most published book in the history of printing? The Bible. On what fundamental text did the literacy of the masses depend in the early history of European and US literacy? The Bible. The Bible was the first book that many people read. The printing of BIBLES was the reason the established church lost its strangle hold on knowledge, because people could read it and interpret it themselves. Printing was the technology that powered the Reformation.

Cheers,
enegue

Posted: August 1st, 2011, 12:12 pm
by Wooden shoe
Hello Enegue.

The only good which has come from religion is a lot of great architecture and music.

The printing press was perhaps the greatest invention of the middle ages.

The koran is also a book that has great numbers for itself, but numbers do not make truth.

I do not teach, also I am not a scientist, and the beginning of this universe is hard to understand at best, but in my mind evolution is a fact with tons of evidence to support it.
The idea of intelligent design is so obviously flawed, because if it were true the designer did a real lousy job.
But if you can accept a amateur designer who screwed up left and right, go for it!

Posted: August 1st, 2011, 11:12 pm
by Queen tina
There are no rules for philosophy, and any philosopher can come out with any idea, crazy or realistic, their idea of truth.
If there is no rule to reasoning, perhaps the existing state of PhD issued by process of pedagogical has failed to regress knowledge.
This is true because philosophy in not going anywhere. Philosophers don't want to go anywhere. They just want to contemplate stuff. There are no goals.
Except for reasoning, believing has't because not believing if also a belief. Aristotle's A = (-A) holds.
That doesn't mean philosophy is not valuable. On the contrary, philosophers dwell in a world of ideas that provide necessary resources for those who ARE going somewhere, like religions.
That doesn't mean REASON is not valuable. On the contrary, philosophers dwell in a world of REASONS that provide necessary who ARE going somewhere, like Believers.

Bah, everyone of us is a PHILOSOPHER and BELIEVER in our own right except we seems not to know how much **** are we **** our REASON and BELIEVING onto other.

Posted: August 2nd, 2011, 7:08 am
by Belinda
Wooden shoe asked enegue:
Please explain where religion is going!
My sense of things is that most religions are in the business of keeping the world from moving foreword, don't like to be confused by facts.
Yes, but Clogs uses religion singular in the first paragraph , and the plural in the second paragraph. Religion can be personal or communal, but it doesn't have to be political, although it often is .
When religion is free from all coercion and is a means of expressing a person's or a community's hopes, fears,sorrows and joys it is entirely necessary for human life.

Posted: August 2nd, 2011, 4:59 pm
by PaulNZ
Wooden shoe wrote:Hello Enegue.

The only good which has come from religion is a lot of great architecture and music.

The printing press was perhaps the greatest invention of the middle ages.

The koran is also a book that has great numbers for itself, but numbers do not make truth.

I do not teach, also I am not a scientist, and the beginning of this universe is hard to understand at best, but in my mind evolution is a fact with tons of evidence to support it.
The idea of intelligent design is so obviously flawed, because if it were true the designer did a real lousy job.
But if you can accept a amateur designer who screwed up left and right, go for it!
Gday Wooden shoe. The idea of intelligent design is not the best argument for the existence of god, but the big bang THEORY is not ideal or without problems either. The endless discussion continues with all parties knowing that the absolute truth is unknowable in our current time and circumstance.

To say religion has offered nothing other than some architecture and music is a little flippant and doesn't need much of a response save to say that, yes great harm has been done in the name of religion as well as great good. Given that at the heart of any religion are humans and human nature, that should hardly be suprising should it?

Religion has been used for governence and control for many centuries in many instances, and had it not, who knows what human nature without any restraint would have got up to in Europe in the aftermath of the fall of the Roman Empire.

What religion has failed to do is keep up with the times and evolve.



:?:

Posted: August 2nd, 2011, 6:32 pm
by Wooden shoe
Gday Enegue.

Regarding religion not keeping up with the times, I agree, It has not been a salting salt for many centuries.

As far as the beginning of our universe this time, speculation is the only thing we can do, so all we can come up with is a most likely scenario.

The big problem I have with a creator is the chaotic nature of our world, which in my mind makes the likelyhood of a random beginning so much more likely.
To think that a biblical God, who is all knowing, all powerfull, all everything, did the job, in my mind at least downgrades this entity to a bumbler.
Now please do not blame the present condition of the universe on sin as there is no biblical evidence of a change in "creation" after the fall.

Posted: August 3rd, 2011, 4:22 am
by Belinda
Wooden shoe, it's not beyond human powers to create a religion without any intentional creator.Science has overtaken the creation function that religion used to provide. Religion without a creation explanation can provide expressive function for us, and be the expression of our common morality.

When the Norwegians were mourning the victims of the murderer Brevik they held a church service of remembrance in which they all tried to come to come to terms with the loss and horror of what had happened. We humans all need a medium in which we can express our feelings and aspirations and religion at its best can supply it.

The arts also provide a means of expression of feelings and aspirations although appreciation of the arts, unlike religion, is limited to those who have had opportunity to learn the idiom of the particular high culture in question.Religion, on the other hand is usually a popular means of expression.

Posted: August 5th, 2011, 4:45 am
by enegue
Wooden shoe wrote:Gday Enegue.

Regarding religion not keeping up with the times, I agree, It has not been a salting salt for many centuries.
Hi, Wooden shoe.

Here's the thing, the fundamental laws of the universe don't change. The ten commandments represent the fundamental law of abundant life. Who would want to changed them?

People object to the first law, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me!", because they don't want to acknowledge an authority higher than themselves, but they don't have to look any further than their immediate environment to see how the first law is a natural, immutable truth. Mum and dad, your teacher at school, your boss, the police, etc. All of these stand in God's stead saying, "If you do well you will be rewarded, if you don't do well there will be unpleasant consequences!" Every day of our lives is spent submitting in some way to someone or suffering the consequences of not doing so.

For any community to make progress together towards a goal, they will get there faster and with the least amount of loss, if they pull in the same direction as the leader. The more individuals pull in other directions the slower the progress will be. If the leaders of our communities fail to set the direction, then the people will all do their own thing and go nowhere.

Who chooses the direction? We do, by electing leaders who have a clear vision for where they want to do. Not for just 4 years or a single term in office, but for twenty years, thirty years... eternity.

All the other commandments can be seen also as natural, immutable truths. Now if this simple set of commandments leads to abundant living, why would we want to change them? Why would we look for leadership anywhere else than the source of those commandments?

Cheers,
enegue

Posted: August 7th, 2011, 11:08 pm
by Wooden shoe
Hello Enegue.

Your concept of a society all with the same goal, walking and acting in lockstep with each other according to the dictates of some leader scares the hell out of me.
This has been tried, all with very negative result.
Perhaps I am wrong but I sense you see things as black and white.
Your reference to the 10 commandments as being an absolute makes me think you have not really studied them.
For instance the "you shall not kill" seems to apply only to not killing other Jews as shortly after giving this command God orders the Jews to commit genocide.
Giving honour to parents is disputed by Jesus and who can blame someone who is starving, for stealing food.
There are very few absolutes other then you and I were born and we will die at some time
You can not prove the existence of a deity just as I can not prove the non-existence of same, however the need for prove lies in your corner, not in mine.