RE: Indoctrination (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 2:02:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ToyOfRhamnusia

Please address the issue by explaining how the concept of a deity is possible without the use of language.

That concepts precede language has been pretty much settled since Piaget. Not all concepts, of course. The development of language rather quickly allows us to expand our cognitive life immeasurably. But far from requiring language, some concepts remain beyond the capability of both our languages and our reason.

It's not concepts of divinity, sacredness, or deity that require language, it's highly particular, narrow, doctrinaire characterizations of them. Nor am I saying that out of some personal bias toward theism:

The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

Now as it happens, there are innumerable threads in the P&R area about topics of which I know little or nothing, and which I therefore have the decency not to pollute with facts of my own invention. It is possible that your enjoyment of the forum might be enhanced by adopting a similar policy.

K.



Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 2:25:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Look at the way a child acquires linguistic ability. First come words ... which are later formed into sentences ... then increasingly complex structures. Generally a child has been learning and mastering language for years before we say they can handle abstract concepts efficiently.

In learning language, infants build on basic concepts that precede the words expressing them. For example, children are able to discriminate spatial relations at an earlier age than they can understand the language that describes these relations. Comprehension of the relational concept precedes the language expressing it. Almost every year we learn something new about just how extraordinarily aware babies are of relationships in their environment. They are forming concepts that allow them to make sense of their world long before they are able to utter a single semi-coherent sentence.

K.



tweakabelle -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 2:42:53 AM)

Please tell me you are not suggesting that infants are capable of developing original abstract concepts such as a deity.

I don't want to believe you are that stupid.





Kanis36 -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 2:46:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
The concept of a deity is inconceivable outside of language.


Koko the Gorilla once blamed a kitten for ripping a sink out of a wall. The ability to lie (and conceptualize) requires the presence of abstract thought. Granted she conveyed the lie via language, you can't tell me the gorilla mystically gained abstract though by being taught sign language. She was also able to relay past experiences (like one of her parents being shot) that occurred previous to her being taught a language. The concept of a deity is NOT inconceivable outside of the possession of language, merely the transference of said idea.



LafayetteLady -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 3:00:21 AM)

~Fast Reply~

What is truly amazing to me is that whenever these "discussions" arise, the atheists always seem to need to fall back on the concept that people who believe in God are ignorant and without the ability to understand reality.  The "believers" never resort to such means to "prove" their point.  What does that say about each side?

As for those who rant and bitch about their schooling and how God and religion was banged into their head...go blame your parents, not society or even the schools who did it.  After all, it was your parents who chose to send you to a parochial school to "indocrinate" you with such "silliness."

As is quite clear from the more intelligent "believers," the arguments put forth by most atheists don't hold water in the long run.  Stupidity of saying that a deity can't exist without language or that the concept of one God didn't exist until some people made it up and put it in the bible a couple thousand years ago reeks more of ignorance than anything people with faith would put forth.




tweakabelle -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 3:01:20 AM)

As you are no doubt aware, the claims that animals understand and can communicate in human languages are mired in controversy. There are a number of conflicting explanations for animals appearing to comprehend some aspects of human language, one of which is they have learned new tricks through repetition and reward without any real comprehension occurring.

It's not my field so you will understand if I merely note the truth value of your opening premise "Koko the Gorilla once blamed a kitten for ripping a sink out of a wall" is hotly disputed. And that, whatever its truth value, it's an awfully long way from that claim to developing original abstract concepts.




freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 4:27:51 AM)

Some good responses while I've been sleeping.

When I say 'man' in my posts, unless obviously alluding to the sex of said person, I am using the generic term for man meaning just about everything from around Homo erectus or even Homo habilis and beyond.

Firstly, there are tribes (both Amazon and African and probably others) that have no formal language at all yet they do have a belief system.
They follow their predecessors by copying rather than transmitting the information by use of any written or spoken language.
As for animals being able to use a language, specifically other primates, when relating to any human language they are taught, I firmly believe they are not fully understanding the language as such but they are indeed relaying some sort of information that we interpret to our own means.
The debate on this as far as I know is still open.
And to be honest, anything that is able to move or make a sound is able to formulate a type of language that they understand between themselves but it may not take a written or vocal form that we understand.
Even fish can make movements that other fish understand to mean "fuck off, stay away, this is my patch" without any sound at all.
So I guess we are all trying to equate 'language' as meaning the written and spoken form that we humans have adopted in various forms.

Babies can indeed divert blame from themselves by implicating other siblings - which requires abstract concepts and the understanding of a lie - well before they understand or have the ability of any language themselves. I have observed that with my own children and those of friends where the oldest baby clearly conveys the apportioning of blame to an even younger sibling or playmate of similar or younger age by gesturing.

It can be argued that some animals do understand a human language.
Dogs and various other animals can be made to do things on command. But is that trully understanding the language or are they just performing by the sound they hear? Most animals are taught to do things by first showing them or guiding them and then getting them to do what they were shown according to a certain sound. That sound could be a vocal command, hence reinforcing the argument that they understand language, or by whistle or arm movements (such as many sheepdogs), which is argued is certainly not a language by most human definitions.
And aren't our children taught in pretty much the same manner?


To respond to LafayetteLady's post I'd like to say this -
Many non-believers say the believers are ignorant because for the most part the believers just spout 'god did it' or similar expressions with no other backing evidence at all other than whatever is printed in their holy book as counter-arguments.
I don't call them ignorant as such but sometimes what they spout is no more than hearsay or conjecture which is usually based on untruths or misinformation. I would prefer to call them 'blinkered' as they cannot accept anything outside of their particular indoctrination.

As for our kids being indoctrinated at schools, it's not always the fault of the parents.
In most state schools (ie, those paid for by government funds) don't give parents any choice in the matter when it comes to RE (religious education) and it is frequently not optional and the kids cannot opt out regardless of their faith.
In a predominantly catholic country, the RE being taught would be the catholic faith.
Over here, it is the CofE (Church of England) faith, ie Protestant; although sometimes you can choose a different faith school if you live close enough and are within the 'catchment area' of the school (and assuming they have room for your child to attend). Most of the alternative faith schools here are catholic.
Typical schools around here have a 20-30 minute 'assembly' every morning before lessons where prayers and other faith-related speeches are said. The timetable has at least 1 hour of RE a week, sometimes more. In many cases, they will only study the faith of the school and barely touch on other faiths in any favourable light or equal discussion.
It may be different in the US and other countries so I can only say what is the norm here.
In that sense, it is wrong to blame the parents.

As for countering my views that god (the ethereal one that is refered to by catholics, protestants and similar faiths) didn't exist until the faith was invented, as being ignorant, is just short-sighted and equally ignorant.
And by saying that the arguments put forward by atheists doesn't hold water in the long run, where is your evidence - without resorting to quoting from ill-conceived (and often inaccurate/incorrect) religious texts??





Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 5:33:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Please tell me you are not suggesting that infants are capable of developing original abstract concepts such as a deity.

You have it precisely backwards. A child's world is filled with magic. A little girl who wants a pony makes a pile of grass clippings, imagining that all the ponies will know it's there and one will come. Theirs is a world in which everything is connected and anything is possible, a world of magical forces and imaginary friends. We have to be taught to fragment our world into the neat categories of rational language, a world in which this is not that, inner and outer are separate, and everything happens mechanically in simplistic cause and effect relationships. When the job is done with uncompromising thoroughness, we even learn to think of ourselves in mechanistic terms, the proudest achievement of a modern education.

K.



thompsonx -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 5:57:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Paladinagain

Actually science and astronomy point to intelligent design with overwhelming evidence.
There are smaller medical research centers that are making MAJOR breakthroughs by approaching the human body with an “engineering” mindset.
Evolution is a long since proven erroneous theory. It’s an impossibility, but yet it is thrust down our children’s throats with our taxpayer dollars. The media insists that it be presented as” fact" on TV on a regular basis. The few true scientists that concur with the facts are ostracized because the scientific community is so political. Throw in all the religious scammers and it’s no wonder that there is no confidence in either.
Jesus said that “there would be few that find it”. I don’t know what percentage that would be but I do know that “few” is “few”.


You are intitled to post your opinion no matter how ignorant,ill founded or asinine it may be.



thompsonx -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 5:59:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
LOL . . have a talk with John Calvin about that.
But seriously, Michael, you are seeking validation of the supernatural through the natural inquiries of science. You don't see the contradiction?


I do not see a contradiction. I feel, in my heart, that a God exists. If that's true, then (in my belief, again) all roads of enlightenment will ultimately lead to him.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

Him whom?



LafayetteLady -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 6:45:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

To respond to LafayetteLady's post I'd like to say this -
Many non-believers say the believers are ignorant because for the most part the believers just spout 'god did it' or similar expressions with no other backing evidence at all other than whatever is printed in their holy book as counter-arguments.
I don't call them ignorant as such but sometimes what they spout is no more than hearsay or conjecture which is usually based on untruths or misinformation. I would prefer to call them 'blinkered' as they cannot accept anything outside of their particular indoctrination.



I will admit that you are among the few (apparent) non-believers that doesn't feel a need to resort to calling anyone ignorant for their beliefs.  It is refreshing. 

I will readily admit that my own church is regularly aggravating the crap out of me for talking about things they "claim" go against the bible, when in reality they are truly ignorant of what they are talking about.  Those kinds of people make me want to bitch slap the shit out of them.  However,  you will also notice I didn't talk about my personal beliefs in my post at all.  I have no desire to convert anyone, and really don't appreciate any atheists needs to "school" me on reality.  My faith brings me comfort.  If that bothers you (as in general you), keep it to yourself, as what I believe has no bearing on your life any more than my belief has on what you believe.



quote:



As for our kids being indoctrinated at schools, it's not always the fault of the parents.
In most state schools (ie, those paid for by government funds) don't give parents any choice in the matter when it comes to RE (religious education) and it is frequently not optional and the kids cannot opt out regardless of their faith.
In a predominantly catholic country, the RE being taught would be the catholic faith.
Over here, it is the CofE (Church of England) faith, ie Protestant; although sometimes you can choose a different faith school if you live close enough and are within the 'catchment area' of the school (and assuming they have room for your child to attend). Most of the alternative faith schools here are catholic.
Typical schools around here have a 20-30 minute 'assembly' every morning before lessons where prayers and other faith-related speeches are said. The timetable has at least 1 hour of RE a week, sometimes more. In many cases, they will only study the faith of the school and barely touch on other faiths in any favourable light or equal discussion.
It may be different in the US and other countries so I can only say what is the norm here.
In that sense, it is wrong to blame the parents.



In the US, attending a religious school is most definately the fault of the parents.  There is no religious teaching in publicly funded schools (unless it is chosen as an elective at the high school or college level).  Separation of church and state, which even being among the religion considered "bible thumping," I'm very in favor of.  I believe that any religious education a child receives should be directed by a child's parents, plain and simple.

quote:


As for countering my views that god (the ethereal one that is refered to by catholics, protestants and similar faiths) didn't exist until the faith was invented, as being ignorant, is just short-sighted and equally ignorant.


Actually since that really wasn't in reference to what you said at all, I completely disagree.  You were not the moron who has tried to claim that this "ethereal" God didn't exist until Christianity was "invented," were you?  Because the reality is that many faiths believed in one or more "ethereal" gods long before Christianity, so from that respect, the person making that claim is indeed ignorant of historical facts and spouting a bunch of bullshit while claiming that people of faith are clueless.  I find that particular gem funny.

quote:


And by saying that the arguments put forward by atheists doesn't hold water in the long run, where is your evidence - without resorting to quoting from ill-conceived (and often inaccurate/incorrect) religious texts??


I was referring specifically to comments on this thread.  We can start with the above person who seemed to think that the concept of one God didn't exist until Christianity.  Granted, I can't show that as not holding water without religious texts, however, it is those same religious texts that show the beliefs existed long before Christianity, and in that particular instance must be used as historical reference, even though that reference is only to show the existence of a belief prior to Christianity (which is a relatively "new" religion compared to others).

Then we can move on to the concept that without language, a faith based belief can not exist, which again, others have brought forth information having NOTHING to do with religious text showing they are wrong in that assumption, so again, we have some angry atheists reaching for something that proves their point and being completely ignorant and uneducated about it.

At the end of the day, both sides should really leave the other alone, in my opinion.  Nothing you say is going to make me or many others here STOP believing in God, and nothing I say is going to make you start to believe.  The philosophical question of "Is there a God?" will NEVER be definitively answered, and while some may attempt to have a mature discussion on the matter, neither side can prove their belief.  However, I do take issue with the atheists always resorting to calling believers stupid, just as much as I have issues with believers resorting to telling atheists they will burn in hell.

In other words, I think that neither side is ever going to put forth a reasonable argument proving their point because from a scientific standpoint, neither side can ever definitively prove their point.  So it is nothing more than people "debating" how their belief system is better.  Bible thumper or not, that does NOT fall within my belief system.






vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 6:46:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Sobottka and Kirata remain prisoners of a consciousness bubble...

A "consciousness bubble" eh? Yeah, that must be it. We should just listen to you. What fools some people are!

K.





Is that your answer to the proposition of reality testing? Pretty pathetic. As is your resorting to arguments from authorities. Are you so invested in narcisism that you cannot conceive of a reality beyond what is imagined by your own inner monologue? Really, truly, there are things out there in the world of matter and energy. If a hammer is thrown through a window the glass shatters. Observers will interpret the event differently perhaps. Some seeing violence, some amused. But likely as not none will deny the reality of the event.



fucktoyprincess -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 7:24:57 AM)

FR

Again, all of those who feel god has all the answers, please STOP using the medical system in any way, shape or form, including all forms of medication. Medicine is SCIENCE.

If you believe god does not have all the answers, then quit interfering with the proper instruction of science in the schools.

I don't care if people believe or don't believe. But don't let belief in an omnipotent deity interfere with the good work of the scientific community. Science saves lives. You don't want to believe in science because you think god has all the answers? Fine. Then don't rely on doctors and medical care to help you and your family. Pray to god.





Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 8:27:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Again, all of those who feel god has all the answers, please STOP using the medical system in any way, shape or form, including all forms of medication. Medicine is SCIENCE.

If you believe god does not have all the answers, then quit interfering with the proper instruction of science in the schools.

I don't care if people believe or don't believe. But don't let belief in an omnipotent deity interfere with the good work of the scientific community. Science saves lives. You don't want to believe in science because you think god has all the answers? Fine. Then don't rely on doctors and medical care to help you and your family. Pray to god.

Who are you talking to? Besides yourself, I mean. Is anybody here interfering "with the good work of the scientific community"? And why should belief in an all-knowing deity contradict going to the doctor? Or perhaps more to the point, why would you want anybody to forego needed medical care for any reason?

K.



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 8:32:17 AM)


I will admit that you are among the few (apparent) non-believers that doesn't feel a need to resort to calling anyone ignorant for their beliefs. It is refreshing.

I'm not, strictly speaking, a non-believer, as in the sense of being atheist or agnostic.
I have my own beliefs and even then, I don't take it all as 'gospel' (for want of a better phrase).
I pick and choose the elements that make sense to me and that I like to embrace as a philosophy to follow as part of my life-style. The rest of it (all the other mumbo-jumbo I either don't like or discard for various reasons) falls by the wayside.

I will readily admit that my own church is regularly aggravating the crap out of me for talking about things they "claim" go against the bible, when in reality they are truly ignorant of what they are talking about. Those kinds of people make me want to bitch slap the shit out of them. However, you will also notice I didn't talk about my personal beliefs in my post at all. I have no desire to convert anyone, and really don't appreciate any atheists needs to "school" me on reality. My faith brings me comfort. If that bothers you (as in general you), keep it to yourself, as what I believe has no bearing on your life any more than my belief has on what you believe.

I personally believe that whatever your own belief system, it is important to yourself and to try and put that above anyone else's belief is really stupid and confrontational.
I think you already realise that my belief is not the same as yours but we can discuss things in a semi-sensible manner.

In the US, attending a religious school is most definately the fault of the parents. There is no religious teaching in publicly funded schools (unless it is chosen as an elective at the high school or college level). Separation of church and state, which even being among the religion considered "bible thumping," I'm very in favor of. I believe that any religious education a child receives should be directed by a child's parents, plain and simple.

Unfortunately, we don't have that luxury over here and I don't think most of Europe does either.
I also think (though not 100% sure), that can also be said of far-eastern countries and most of the middle east.
There are alternative faith schools here (usually Jewish, Orthodox or Islamic) but they tend to hold classes after the normal school hours.

Actually since that really wasn't in reference to what you said at all, I completely disagree. You were not the moron who has tried to claim that this "ethereal" God didn't exist until Christianity was "invented," were you? Because the reality is that many faiths believed in one or more "ethereal" gods long before Christianity, so from that respect, the person making that claim is indeed ignorant of historical facts and spouting a bunch of bullshit while claiming that people of faith are clueless. I find that particular gem funny.

Indeed, I was that 'moron' who said that.
And yes, there were other ethereal gods worshipped by other religions long before christianity.
However, it is really only the christian-style religions that had that particular 'god' that I was refering to and spout his all-being, omnipotent presence. What I actually said was, that particular 'god' that some on this thread defer to didn't exist until the religion-base of christianity was born.
I guess that can also be said of many religions and in my ignorance omitted them. Appologies for that.
That said however, there are many religions (my own included) that are based on real things that were observed or could be touched. The Egyptians being a prime example. Their many gods (deities really) were what they could see in the night sky (by joining up the stars in some fancy pattern) and the likes of 'Ra' the sun god they could see during the day.

I was referring specifically to comments on this thread. We can start with the above person who seemed to think that the concept of one God didn't exist until Christianity. Granted, I can't show that as not holding water without religious texts, however, it is those same religious texts that show the beliefs existed long before Christianity, and in that particular instance must be used as historical reference, even though that reference is only to show the existence of a belief prior to Christianity (which is a relatively "new" religion compared to others).

There aren't many other non-christian belief systems, past and present, that hold a belief in a singular god like christian-based religions do. So in that respect, the 'one god' idea is almost unique to that culture.

Then we can move on to the concept that without language, a faith based belief can not exist, which again, others have brought forth information having NOTHING to do with religious text showing they are wrong in that assumption, so again, we have some angry atheists reaching for something that proves their point and being completely ignorant and uneducated about it.

As I mentioned in another post further up, there are indeed groups of people and small civilisations that exist today that most definitely do have a belief system but not any formal written or verbal language.
So I dispute the fact that a belief/faith system cannot exist without language as there is indisputable evidence (ie, living people) to the contrary.

At the end of the day, both sides should really leave the other alone, in my opinion. Nothing you say is going to make me or many others here STOP believing in God, and nothing I say is going to make you start to believe. The philosophical question of "Is there a God?" will NEVER be definitively answered, and while some may attempt to have a mature discussion on the matter, neither side can prove their belief. However, I do take issue with the atheists always resorting to calling believers stupid, just as much as I have issues with believers resorting to telling atheists they will burn in hell.

I fully agree with that [8D]

In other words, I think that neither side is ever going to put forth a reasonable argument proving their point because from a scientific standpoint, neither side can ever definitively prove their point. So it is nothing more than people "debating" how their belief system is better. Bible thumper or not, that does NOT fall within my belief system.

I think the main problem with any religious 'discussion' is that there will always be someone that degenerates the conversation or discussion into a shit-slinging match by trying to claim that their belief system is better than that of an opposing viewpoint. That is usually accomplished by spouting something that will rub the other person up the wrong way and sometimes I feel that they do that deliberately to antagonise and goad the opposition into further angry discord.
The other half of the problem, as you mentioned, is taking the universal standpoint that you are absolutely right and the others outside of your chosen pathway are definitely wrong on all counts. That sort of entrenchment is certainly going to cause adverse friction and shit-slinging.


Some good and well-thought replies.
That is also very welcome and refreshing.



Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 8:44:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

Is that your answer to the proposition of reality testing? Pretty pathetic. As is your resorting to arguments from authorities. Are you so invested in narcisism that you cannot conceive of a reality beyond what is imagined by your own inner monologue? Really, truly, there are things out there in the world of matter and energy. If a hammer is thrown through a window the glass shatters. Observers will interpret the event differently perhaps. Some seeing violence, some amused. But likely as not none will deny the reality of the event.

Father forgive me. For I have done those things which I ought not to have done; I have thought for myself and read the forbidden words of physicists. And I have left undone those things which I ought to have done; I have ignored thy Holy Word. But thou in thy infinite mercy, I beg, forgive my sins; and help me henceforth to live an upright life according to the Word of Vincent. Amen.

K.



LafayetteLady -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 9:05:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

FR

Again, all of those who feel god has all the answers, please STOP using the medical system in any way, shape or form, including all forms of medication. Medicine is SCIENCE.

If you believe god does not have all the answers, then quit interfering with the proper instruction of science in the schools.

I don't care if people believe or don't believe. But don't let belief in an omnipotent deity interfere with the good work of the scientific community. Science saves lives. You don't want to believe in science because you think god has all the answers? Fine. Then don't rely on doctors and medical care to help you and your family. Pray to god.



If you would actually stop stomping your feet like a two year old, you might learn that the majority of modern day Christians believe that God and science can compliment each other.  No, they haven't completely come to terms with each other.  I like to think of them as being engaged and working towards a marriage.

You seem to espouse the concept that all Christians think that prayer is the answer to everything, and that simply couldn't be further from the truth.  Those who do think God has all the answers don't use any medical intervention, so there is no need for you to keep insisting on it.  They also don't interfere with science making any progress of any kind.  They aren't arguing what is taught in public schools, because those types of Christians tend to home school their children, so they have no interest in what public schools teach.

It baffles me why you are so angry and against the concept that people who believe in one "omnipotent deity" can use medicine AND prayer.  It certainly doesn't affect your life in any way.



LafayetteLady -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 9:14:06 AM)

There were many religions that espoused the one deity concept before Christianity.  The Hebrews believed that for hundreds of years before the Christians came along.

The reality is that you and I can have a discussion on the issue because obviously neither of us have any interest in telling the other that what they believe is wrong and apparently our personal beliefs aren't that much different.

While I do believe that God knows everything, I also believe he is only sharing that knowledge on a kind of "need to know" basis, and that he does that through scientific discoveries on many occassions, because as of right now (and the long term future), science doesn't have ALL the answers either.



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 9:39:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
There were many religions that espoused the one deity concept before Christianity.  The Hebrews believed that for hundreds of years before the Christians came along.

There weren't that many, although I agree the Hebrews were certainly one of the very few.
Most of the religions were/are Polythiestic in nature, not many were monotheistic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
The reality is that you and I can have a discussion on the issue because obviously neither of us have any interest in telling the other that what they believe is wrong and apparently our personal beliefs aren't that much different.

If you take our two beliefs, they are poles apart and pretty much (I suspect) diometrically opposed to each other in their basis and structure.
However, as you rightly indicated, neither of us have any interest in spouting that one is better than the other. What's the point?
What works for you is fine by me and vice-versa.
Obviously, those elements we have both chosen from our respective religions have taught us to be tolerant and to accept that others may not agree with us. [8D]
Unfortunately for some others, they can't seem to grasp that concept.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady
While I do believe that God knows everything, I also believe he is only sharing that knowledge on a kind of "need to know" basis, and that he does that through scientific discoveries on many occassions, because as of right now (and the long term future), science doesn't have ALL the answers either.

Isn't that a bit condescending to your own religion?? [;)]
Shouldn't all the followers be kept 'in-the-loop' so to speak?
And I agree, science does not have all the answers as yet.
I firmly believe that science (as we know it) is a human-based thing brought about by natural curiosity of an idle mind rather than any intervention of a god 'allowing' certain people to have those inspirations.

And whilst I don't agree that 'god' knows everything (I don't even believe in that god), I will defend your right to believe in what works for you.

Cest la vie!
A nice happy family... I wish!



mnottertail -> RE: Indoctrination (11/14/2012 9:41:16 AM)

And the Hebrews at their inception believed god had a wife.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625