Register
Email: Password:
Forum » More action! (FEATURES A NAUGHTY WORD!)
  • « previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • » next
  • More action! (FEATURES A NAUGHTY WORD!)

    Amarth 8 years ago
    Boo. Wussies.

    More seriously... I've started thinking about why people are willing to go to such extremes as anger and hatred just to defend their opinion. It seems to me that, when someone sees a theory as a universal truth, they attach a huge emotional value to it. I've noticed this with myself for the infamous 0.99 = 1 equation. For me, it represents a mathematical and thus universal truth, and I have the tendency to view anyone who does not agree with me as a moron. I suppose it is the same with religions. People are convinced that their religion (or life philosophy, or whatever) is the universal truth, and cannot comprehend other opinions. Of course, it is not a universal truth.

    That, I think, is the fundamental difference between science and religion for me. Science is about the world and the universal truths and rules that can be derived from it (mind you, I don't say that we have them, we just strive for them). Religion is about your personal relationship with the world, and as such, does not contain universal truths in that they apply for *everyone*. There might be people agreeing with you (I sure am glad there are millions, even billions of Christians around the world, even if they don't exactly believe the same as I do), but there will certainly also be people disagreeing with you, and that is normal. That is what religion is.

    I think that realizing that yet not discarding your own religion (nihilism doesn't make sense to me) makes you a true follower of your religion and a valuable person.
    #
    MageKing17 8 years ago
    "Shingo" said:
    solstices... (anyone know a better plural term for them there things? =/ )
    The correct plural form of "solstice" is, in fact, solstices. So, no.

    "Shingo" said:
    Nowheres. Ever. Does the bible say that God did not use Evolution and/or a process similar to it as his tool to create said beings.
    An excellent point. One I try to bring up in conversations with Intelligent Design people as often as possible.

    "Shingo" said:
    In two words, by our very existence as sentient being we are possessed of free will.
    Sapient, damnit! Stop confusing sentient and sapient! Science fiction does it enough.

    "Shingo" said:
    Biological instincts certainly have an effect upon us, but we have that cherished gift - that is, we can aspire to be better than we are and to rise above our baser selves.
    Such is the joy of automatic vs controlled thinking - the ability to override our instincts.

    "Shingo" said:
    Equally so, we can forego such noble aspirations and descend into primeval urges alone.
    Fortunately, such full-blown descent is rare and they tend to just fall into a sort of middling range.

    "Shingo" said:
    The metaphor that strikes me as most relevant is that of a parent and his children. Our parents are sad to see us grow up. They are afraid for our loss of innocence. That we will soon lose the childlike belief that all the world is fun and games, and no bad men will prevail lest daddy should soon be there to put a stop to his work. Certainly we as parents wish to save our children from harm, and so forth. How much more understandable then, is the story of Eden when taken in this context? Much more, I would have to say. One can argue whether it was ultimately for evil or for good. In example - Without objective evil there can be no subjective good. Likewise, without suffering there can be no joy. I then conclude that 'original sin' is at once both a vile and wondrous thing.
    Unless it's used for misogynistic purposes. Then it's just plain vile. Otherwise yes, it calls to mind the old quote... oh damn, I can't find it, and wikiquote is being unhelpful. (EDIT: Turns out I was looking for the quote in your own signature. "...is to attempt seeing Truth without knowing Falsehood. It is the attempt to see the Light without knowing Darkness. It cannot be.")

    "Shingo" said:
    Apropros, I submit again my opinion that it is not hypocrisy for me, as a Christian, to be opined that certain parts of evolution are not contradictory in terms with my beliefs and/or the bible.
    Bravo to you for it. I don't see how belief in the bible allows for literal interpretation of it, however, which you said you believed was possible (for parts). Either those parts are those dealing with mundane things (I wouldn't call it paradoxical to take it saying someone ate a certain piece of bread on a certain day literally, for instance), or you have a different definition of literal than I do. Or there's a third option I've missed, it's always possible.

    (Tone of voice for this post is neutral-pleased, except for that last bit which is neutral-puzzled. Both non-hostile. This notice brought to you by the fact that 90% of all communication is miscommunication.)
    #
    Forum » More action! (FEATURES A NAUGHTY WORD!)
  • « previous
  • 1
  • 2
  • » next
  • Post Reply


    Your email:
    Your name: