Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Scientists establish a link between religious fundamentalism and brain damage

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by OmegaBronco13 View Post

    Religion is also about community. Being a part of or belonging to something special. It's a support structure. Something bigger than one's self.

    Laws hold people accountable for their actions. Religion is beyond man's laws.
    In what country is this true?

    (I doubt you're going to like the answer.)

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post

      That's an attitude or a mindset - not a "faith."
      Eh its faith in their ideas usually seated in some moral attitude. At any rate you can split hairs about definitions or exact terms but basically they are the same impulse manifested in slightly different ways

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Agamemnon View Post

        It’s also not exactly a valid concept. The people who call anything “secular religion” are morons.
        It's basically the same faulty logic religious fundamentalists apply to atheism.

        Might as well clear that up as long as we're here...


        I'll use the old gumball example where there is large jar full of gumballs or marbles....



        2.jpg.c9649f82c90af4fdea62c59e261ef77a.jpg



        Theism is the claim that an intervening god exists. So, in this example, it is the claim that there is an even number of gumballs in the jar. Atheism is the rejection of the claim which, in accordance with this example, is the claim of knowledge that there is an even number of gumballs in the jar. Many people, sadly, consider atheism to be a claim itself that there is an odd number of gumballs in the jar. A grasp of this very simple but often misunderstood piece of logic should be required of any person due to serve on a jury, because it means the prospective juror does not understand the difference between 'guilty or not guilty' or 'guilty or innocent' or basic logic for that matter. To state that atheism is a claim or assertion that no god exists is patently foolish and sadly widespread.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post

          It seems you are doing the redefining here, i.e., using one word (faith) in place of its opposite (intellectual rigidity, etc.)
          Are you arguing that cults of personality, like Trump's or any of the many well known throughout history, don't exhibit any form of "faith?"

          Did Naziism or Stalinism not involve "faith?"

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by kappys View Post

            Eh its faith in their ideas usually seated in some moral attitude. At any rate you can split hairs about definitions or exact terms but basically they are the same impulse manifested in slightly different ways
            It's not "hair-splitting" at all.

            The mindset that one's ideas or beliefs are above criticism and "faith" are antithetical.

            Unless you are proposing some radical alternative definition of "faith?"

            But by then you've crossed into "I can call a dog a cat if I want to" territory.



            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

              Are you arguing that cults of personality, like Trump's or any of the many well known throughout history, don't exhibit any form of "faith?"

              Did Naziism or Stalinism not involve "faith?"
              Belief - not faith.

              But why don't you stick with your original premise, i.e., that intellectual rigidity is the same thing as faith?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post

                Belief - not faith.

                But why don't you stick with your original premise, i.e., that intellectual rigidity is the same thing as faith?
                See, I told you you'd even resort to twisting the definitions themselves to mark fictional distinctions.

                https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

                Definition of faith

                (Entry 1 of 2)

                1a: allegiance to duty or a person :
                LOYALTY



                All people are predisposed to this. Progressives definitely included.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

                  See, I told you you'd even resort to twisting the definitions themselves to mark fictional distinctions.

                  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

                  Definition of faith

                  (Entry 1 of 2)

                  1a: allegiance to duty or a person :
                  LOYALTY



                  All people are predisposed to this. Progressives definitely included.


                  Beaver cherry picking a definition to advance a specious argument?

                  Color me shocked.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    I shouldn't have to explain something this obvious, but the meaning of "faith" as used in "keeping faith with his constituents," or "Joe Blow was faithful to his wife" is not the same meaning as "his deeply-held religious faith."

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      faith (n.)

                      mid-13c., faith, feith, fei, fai "faithfulness to a trust or promise; loyalty to a person; honesty, truthfulness," from Anglo-French and Old French feid, foi "faith, belief, trust, confidence; pledge" (11c.), from Latin fides "trust, faith, confidence, reliance, credence, belief," from root of fidere "to trust,"from PIE root *bheidh- "to trust, confide, persuade." For sense evolution, see belief. Accommodated to other English abstract nouns in -th (truth, health, etc.).

                      From early 14c. as "assent of the mind to the truth of a statement for which there is incomplete evidence," especially "belief in religious matters" (matched with hope and charity). Since mid-14c. in reference to the Christian church or religion; from late 14c. in reference to any religious persuasion.

                      And faith is neither the submission of the reason, nor is it the acceptance, simply and absolutely upon testimony, of what reason cannot reach. Faith is: the being able to cleave to a power of goodness appealing to our higher and real self, not to our lower and apparent self. [Matthew Arnold, "Literature & Dogma," 1873]


                      From late 14c. as "confidence in a person or thing with reference to truthfulness or reliability," also "fidelity of one spouse to another." Also in Middle English "a sworn oath," hence its frequent use in Middle English oaths and asseverations (par ma fay, mid-13c.; bi my fay, c. 1300).

                      https://www.etymonline.com/word/faith

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post

                        In what country is this true?

                        (I doubt you're going to like the answer.)
                        It was in response to ... "There is also a power to making humans accountable for their actions. If life was finite and that was it then many people would behave as they wanted with little consciousness." So again. Laws keep people responsible for their actions. For example. Not paying your property tax isn't a sin. Speeding isn't a sin.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post



                          Beaver cherry picking a definition to advance a specious argument?

                          Color me shocked.
                          It's literally Merriam Webster's 1A definition.

                          Labron:

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post

                            It's literally Merriam Webster's 1A definition.
                            And you would have us defy all reason, experience, logic and common sense in order to refer to "1A" as the only definition.

                            Even when I provided an easily-understood counterexample.

                            Dodging the post re: the etymology isn't helping your case either.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN View Post

                              It's not "hair-splitting" at all.

                              The mindset that one's ideas or beliefs are above criticism and "faith" are antithetical.

                              Unless you are proposing some radical alternative definition of "faith?"

                              But by then you've crossed into "I can call a dog a cat if I want to" territory.


                              You and Beavis have just spent the last 2 pages splitting hairs.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by kappys View Post

                                You and Beavis have just spent the last 2 pages splitting hairs.
                                For Beaver, it's simply "mission accomplished," i.e., steered the thread topic as far off course as possible.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X