You're also right that I don't like religion - I don't, because it's used as a justification for war, murder, censorship, authoritarianism, ostracism... need I go on?
Which is also the reason that I have to point out that these things existed *in spades* in the past.
The soviets managed to do this will be just about as hostile as you could be to it.
Want to know how bad? I had a professor in college who was traveling in Russia. She managed to take a picture of some little old 90 year old lady doing her wash on the church lawn. The old lady freaked out ran after this lady something like 15 blocks to try and get the camera back. Reason for this? She thought that she was part of the KGB and was going to send her to the gulag.
To state that religion can and has justify thing is one thing. To claim that it has exclusive or majority share in it is foolish to the bitter end.
Look at most of Shakespear's plays. A hell of a lot of persecution, war, murder, censorship, authoritarianism, ostracism, etc. Most of this is done without really even mentioning a church, let alone something specific.
To get specific
Western United States
Where do you live out of interest?
to know where on the planet there is any consensus on the divinity of Jesus, because there's none in my country, non in europe at all really.
Well since you asking about this maybe I should really define my definition sharply.
If you havn't gone to a church lately let me fill you in: most people go there because they genuinely believe what they are saying and is being said in the bible. Due to this inconvinent little fact I have to state that in fact there is much that could easily be said that nearly 90+% of those that go to church believe in the metaphysical claims contained in that religion.
Now what exactly again are the percentages of people who go to church? Oh that's right something we call a clear majority (in politics this is over 2/3rds or 66+ in the least).
Hence my claim.
On to other points.
AND you don't have a clue about logic. No, I can't disprove religion, but neither can you prove it ya moron! Ever wonder why 'faith' and 'belief' surround religion? It's because none of it is proveable and it requires a leap of faith to believe in it!
Maybe you should open a book on epistimology some time.
Maybe in some silly book on cs algorithms or something it can't be done. But there were (and are) many people who would doubt this concept.
Depending on what your branch of science is it's easy to find similar ideas which are equally taken on a large degree of acceptance and glossing over the facts.
This is not to maintain that it's necessary to scientifically approach the topic in such a manner of course. Science and society don't mix. Finding out why say Hitler came to power can't be done by looking at physics, or chemistry, but by society.
Maybe you should reaquaint yourself with how people put their trust in things that they can't understand or could *EVER* understand every day. The best you can do is that there is a vague feeling in the back of your head that it works.
Compare say the concepts that we currently know now to concepts in the 1850's from science. There is no conceivable way they could have known those things at that time.
We currently have science fiction which is all based on the principle that there are things we can more or less model but can't correctly prove. (Something your comfortably left out of your reply). Does it make it impossible for those things to exist now, or ever to exist just because we don't have the blueprints and proper equations to explain about say the torrisonal stress on the inner beam of a space station on Saturn.
As for Himmler's ancient Teutonic religion, why would I look that up? I think all religiong is bunk by definition, because it relies on faith and fancy rather than evidence.
And I think your applying chemistry principles to society when you try and defame religion.
Try looking at Richard Swinburne sometime. The guy makes you look like Pee Wee Herman and does a much better job of analyzing such things.
Don't ever get sick again or you might have to have "faith" that say some untested idea to save you might have to be "believed" rather than totally proved.
The world is far better for the existence of religion.
The proof is contained frankly in all those tomes.
That's the most insane post I've read in ages. I salute you sir!
That's total shit and you should know it.
If it isn't you probably move in a very insular group of people and have limited contact with others becides your little atheist friends.
You have flat denials to virtually everything I've said and came back with oh-too-predictable answers about how I can't "prove" anything.
History isn't science.
I bet you a great deal of money right now that I could find a book you neither understand, nor will ever understand.
Does that mean it's full of lies?
Belief is there in principle for a couple operating reasons:
1. To show devotion and moral piety (ie conviction). Again these pesky moral ideals which you fake religion doesn't have.
2. To make up for the limited intellectual, time, and mental capacity of even genius humans. More books have been published on the elementals of almost any idea set (history, science, religion, philosophy, etc) which mean that this very process is going to have to happen *ALL THE TIME*.
A very fashionable response at this point in time is to try and claim that you can look up the answers to all these complex problems and somehow prove them. That's all well and good but the exact same thing can be said of religion. Ask someone who knows: again same with religion. Literally multiple billions of people independently have came to the conclusion that *some* afterlife exists. Now whether they agree or disagree, or even fail to get with the program or not isn't the point. The point is that all these people couldn't be *WRONG*. Especially when all of the detractors aren't disinterested third parties but people with real things to gain and lose from their non-participation.
Just admit it, you simply couldn't survive in such an environment largely because your a slothful person in this.
It's why we have demarcations in branches of learning.
Oh and one more thing. I have a strong feeling that I have more education both formal and informal than you do at this point. I don't like operating with someone who's just like my brother. Guess what he hasn't bothered to even read the texts in question or even bother to do anything expcept play video games and dink around in high school.
Spare me this "but you can't prove it" crap. It's like someone asking you, your thoughts on say a prediction equation for earthquakes based on temperature, core thickness, and say magma buyancy (something I've read about recently for Venus for example). There is proof you just think it's disqualified from consideration because History doesn't meet math's criterion for being a step by step mathmetical proof.
How much of your own life can you "prove". Did you realize that there's degrees of proof? What happens theoretically for example if all of the reccords of chemistry were suddenly gone tomorrow and all the knowledge lost? Would be still be "proved"?
Honestly your very point about religion being the *professed* reason that people went to war.
This is almost as bad as the idiot who claimed that mental illness didn't exist becuase you can't have two types of rules governing sane and insane behavior. Sometimes if a theory doesn't match the available evidence then the theory has to be ammended.
So far no one worth a damn has been able to completely explain away those billions.
But science has been able to explain away witchcraft, a supposedly flat earth (early on). It being 6,000 years old, etc (don't believe that).
Frankly I believe every part of what science says I can also believe in Christianity.
Again let's look at specific points here what's stood the test of time? Right.
As far as logic perhaps you realize that much can be done with classical non-symbolic logic which is absolutely wrong. In fact in homo-land of the Greeks they had people called sophists who did just that. Made up things that were totally wrong.
[ Parent ]