Loftus: Are We Angry Atheists?
by leavingwt 237 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
fulltimestudent
haha! Am I an angry atheist. hmm!! I do nto call myself and atheist, although I could be described that way. I prefer to call myself a 'post-christian'. That is, I was a Christian, but I've moved on.
I am now (at least to an extent) influenced by ancient chinese thought. For example, Laozi, using water to try and describe what he meant by Dao, said: (or, his disciples say he said)
"Water is good: it benefits all things and does not compete with them.
It dwells in (lowly) places that all disdain.
This is why it is so near to Dao.
(The best man) in his dwelling loves the earth.
In his heart, he loves what is profound.
In his associations, he loves humanity."
Isn't that just as valid as anything that Jesus said?
Daoism btw is usually dated to the sixth century BCE, but the precise date is not important as it is not trying to propphesy like the OT or NT.
-
VampireDCLXV
Post-Christain...
I like it!V665
-
BurnTheShips
Hey Gladiator, let me clarify. What I mean is that I don't care if you are Caesar and free, I'm happy with it, rather.
But your arse is still going down.
BTS
-
SweetBabyCheezits
If someone else's belief system is not hurting you, why bother trying to change it?
Because superstition impedes the progress of mankind in general. We must consider the bigger picture not just local, isolated issues.
-
PSacramento
Because superstition impedes the progress of mankind in general. We must consider the bigger picture not just local, isolated issues.
Superstitions yes, but not all religion is anti-progress or anti-science, don't forget that many of the great advances were by religious people, even people in religious orders and for many centuries the chruch financed and supported many scientific and exploratory endevours.
-
-
SweetBabyCheezits
Yes, I agree with that assessment, Paul. I don't doubt religion has made progress within itself. And, you know, without "religious" individuals contributing to modern advancements, we would still probably be in the dark ages. But that is despite religious superstition, not because of it.
Perhaps if folks in the iron age weren't so busy ascribing epilepsy to the superstitious "demonic posession", but instead labeling the condition as "unexplained", the period of time for unlearning their superstition would be nil. So arriving at a reasonable, scientific diagnosis might've come sooner.
In cases where science posits some theory that conflicts with, say, the bible - or the church's perspective regarding a passage or passages - what then? Fundamentalist opposition to evolution being taught in schools is just one modern example.
-
SweetBabyCheezits
Nice graphic, whereami.
-
whereami
I said it in a pic. You said it in words.
