quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

Maybe I'm not understanding correctly what you meant, but using the peasant example was to say a language based on images that for them was cristal clear to me the only mening is just a nice drawing unless someone don't explain to me the message or I read it on a book (that means I'm accepting the author word).
So what I meant is martin luther was an ignorant and created an army of hepless disciples that really believe what's in the bible are facts as they are wrote, so they reject science, and it's kind of a portestant's peculiarity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal

quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83

Maybe I'm not understanding correctly what you meant, but using the peasant example was to say a language based on images that for them was cristal clear to me the only mening is just a nice drawing unless someone don't explain to me the message or I read it on a book (that means I'm accepting the author word).
So what I meant is martin luther was an ignorant and created an army of hepless disciples that really believe what's in the bible are facts as they are wrote, so they reject science, and it's kind of a portestant's peculiarity.

If I caused you any confusion, it certainly wasn't intentional. This isn't about Catholicism vs. Protestantism, and no way do I want to open that can of worms.
We can agree to disagree and to disregard any remarks that are not personally meaningful to either of us.

I respect what you had to say in your earlier post as another perspective on the difficulty of how any given individual can interpret theological tenets based on ancient Scriptures, much less find relevancy in their adult lives for whatever religious beliefs they were taught as children.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

There seemss to be a great deal of talk among atheists about "scientific fact" regarding religion. All claim to be brirght individuals yet it appears they are quite incapable of what makes anything "scientific fact" versus the "legal/historical" fact or truth.

In science to prove a theory, one creates a hypothesis, then by controlled exeriment tests their hypothesis. Only wwhen they are able to get repeated results consistently cann something be a "scientific fact.,

On the other hand, we have and hold as truth many "legal/historical" facts, yet we can't conduct any experiments to prove those truths. We rely on testimony, whether written or consistently retold, and evidence. Essentially, the laws of reasonable doubt. For instance, it is accepted to be a historical fact that the United States fought against the British, beating them to gain freedom as a separate country.

Yet, no experiments can be done to prove this. We this truth from written documents and artifacts.

We accept as truth the idea of gladiators fighting in the collesium in Rome and of the Chariot races nearby. We can't do any experiments, but through written documentation and archeological artifacts, we accept this as likely being true.

But do either of those things qualify as "scientific fact?" Nope. Historical fact? Myself, along with about a trillion or so people around the world say these things are facts.

If you don't know the difference, then you really can't talk about your ability to separate fact from fiction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal
Sneer all you want to. I'm in much better company with Sir Isaac Newton, the physician Nostradamus, and Einstein than with the likes of you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein#Personal_God_and_the_afterlife
The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal
Sneer all you want to. I'm in much better company with Sir Isaac Newton, the physician Nostradamus, and Einstein than with the likes of you.

Just so you know, you aren't team Einstein.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Just so you know, you aren't team Einstein.

Just so you know, there's more on that page...

"This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God."

quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

There seemss to be a great deal of talk among atheists about "scientific fact" regarding religion. All claim to be brirght individuals yet it appears they are quite incapable of what makes anything "scientific fact" versus the "legal/historical" fact or truth.

In science to prove a theory, one creates a hypothesis, then by controlled exeriment tests their hypothesis. Only wwhen they are able to get repeated results consistently cann something be a "scientific fact.,

On the other hand, we have and hold as truth many "legal/historical" facts, yet we can't conduct any experiments to prove those truths. We rely on testimony, whether written or consistently retold, and evidence. Essentially, the laws of reasonable doubt. For instance, it is accepted to be a historical fact that the United States fought against the British, beating them to gain freedom as a separate country.

Yet, no experiments can be done to prove this. We this truth from written documents and artifacts.

We accept as truth the idea of gladiators fighting in the collesium in Rome and of the Chariot races nearby. We can't do any experiments, but through written documentation and archeological artifacts, we accept this as likely being true.

But do either of those things qualify as "scientific fact?" Nope. Historical fact? Myself, along with about a trillion or so people around the world say these things are facts.

If you don't know the difference, then you really can't talk about your ability to separate fact from fiction.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal
You are making the assumption that all religious teachings are tantamount to brainwashing, and that simply isn't correct.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
No I'm not making that assumption. I'm just making the assumption that all religious brainwashing is brainwashing.

Hahaha...clever.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal
Also, I was influenced by my upbringing, but I honestly can't relate to brainwashing.
My father was a free thinker, an armchair liberal, who practiced what he preached. He taught me, by example, to think for myself, and to question his own beliefs and philosophies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal
I can't imagine being raised in a regimented atmosphere of guilt and shame.
Following the rules and having respect for authority is one thing.
Not being able to question why these rules are in place or to question authority is a relatively foreign concept to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

I would have thought the word was obvious. I never used "all" you were the first one to contribute that claim to my position in any sense.

Consider for a moment that among the Unitarian Universalists atheists feel so at home they outnumber the theists, Sam Harris is a Buddhist, when I visited Kyoto I spent several days attending a monastery there and meditating six hours a day with the zen buddhist monks, I found it quite peaceful, and the list goes on.

I find that theists would frequently benefit in understanding if they would do a little more asking the atheist what the atheist means instead of misinforming the atheist as to what the atheist means.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

What do you mean by free thinker, was your father an atheist?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Well I'm glad that nuns didn't beat with a ruler for asking questions or some such but also keep in mind that there exists a good deal in the way of indoctrination which is subtle and insidious the sort of thing people often can't even recognize until well after they've deconverted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal
So what you're saying is that you take exception to Christian fundamentalist teachings?

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination
Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).[1] It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2] As such the term may be used pejoratively, often in the context of education, political opinions, theology or religious dogma. The term is closely linked to socialization; in common discourse, indoctrination is often associated with negative connotations, while socialization refers to cultural or educational learning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FieryOpal
Whether you realize it or not, you kinda gave the impression that you were in fact against all religious indoctrination.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Typically there's considered to be an important distinction between the two terms:

quote:

ORIGINAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination
Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).[1] It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2] As such the term may be used pejoratively, often in the context of education, political opinions, theology or religious dogma. The term is closely linked to socialization; in common discourse, indoctrination is often associated with negative connotations, while socialization refers to cultural or educational learning.

The difference between indoctrination and education is not being clearly drawn in that snippet, because education also expects students to accept without question a great deal of what they are taught. Arithmetic, for example. The difference between indoctrination and education lies in the truth value of what is being imparted, in the difference between doctrine and fact. The measure we use to distinguish indoctrination from education is our assessment of its truth value.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata



Apparently having a brain wired that way was such an improvement that today nearly all human beings do.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

The long-and-short of it is that young children are prone to believe in some form of higher power but unless they are reinforced with religious training, they tend to grow out of such belief.

quote:

This conclusion contradicts previous studies in which children were said to be “born believers,” i.e. that they possessed “a natural credulity toward extraordinary beings with superhuman powers. Indeed, secular children responded to religious stories in much the same way as they responded to fantastical stories — they judged the protagonist to be pretend.”