• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:843] How religious thinking works

Ouroboros said:
Some atheists may consider themselves apolitical....
Click to expand...


Some Christians consider themselves a political


...when Marxism expoused its particular form of atheism, it did so with political aims in mind...
Click to expand...


There is no particular for of Atheism

Marx was a communist who was also an Atheist...how would you explain a capitalist Atheist?
How does your mind explain Thomas Jefferson's lack of faith, was that founding father a communist too or do you accept that Atheists come in all colors, races, genders and believer in certain political and certain economic systems?

...therefore atheism is just as much implicated in politics as is religion in practice, if not in theory.
Click to expand...


So not believing in a god(s) means you HAVE to take an economic viewpoint? You HAVE to decide between competing political systems?
 
Elvira said:
More with the reading comprehension problems...did you even finish grade school?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if an institution has a million believers and is wrong, it is still wrong.

Human sacrifice had man adherents back then, it was still wrong.
 
Rich2018 said:
It doesn't matter if an institution has a million believers and is wrong, it is still wrong.

Human sacrifice had man adherents back then, it was still wrong.
Click to expand...

Yeah and they were ALL pagans, which the Bible speaks out against...did you finish grade school? :roll:
 
Elvira said:
Yeah and they were ALL pagans, which the Bible speaks out against...did you finish grade school? :roll:
Click to expand...

It was a comparison.

The Romans were pagans an yet even to them who practiced slavery and watched gladiatorial games, it was abhorrent.


Slavery was practiced by pagans and Christians too - all Jesus had to say was the OT of "obey your master" still applied.
 
Rich2018 said:
It was a comparison.

The Romans were pagans an yet even to them who practiced slavery and watched gladiatorial games, it was abhorrent.


Slavery was practiced by pagans and Christians too - all Jesus had to say was the OT of "obey your master" still applied.
Click to expand...

No, I guess not...
 
Rich2018 said:
Nope, many Israelites owned slaves.

Many followers of Jesus were to own slaves.


George Washington owner slaves.
Click to expand...

And no doubt, you ancestors owned slaves...so?
 
Ouroboros said:
Some atheists may consider themselves apolitical. However, when Marxism expoused its particular form of atheism, it did so with political aims in mind: to undercut the attempts of governments to validate their sovereignty in terms of religion. Therefore atheism is just as much implicated in politics as is religion in practice, if not in theory.
Click to expand...

Atheism is apolitical, as is religion. That either is used by ideologues does not change this fact.
 
Ouroboros said:
This begs the eternal question: how did religion get started? If religious feeling stems from a need for social acceptance, why invoke a god at all? Why not just stick with, "do this or your society will cast you out."

IMO, religious feeling is its own thing, and it can be pressed into service for purposes of social control. The idea that religion got started from nasty priests hoaxing innocent dum-dums is naive in the extreme.
Click to expand...

And would probably have a hard time with religions where the priests enter into poverty and self-denial, or the founders and early followers are martyred.
 
Glitch said:
No, I mean he is a con-artist, a trickster, a flimflammer, a fraud, someone without any honor, someone who cannot be trusted, someone without any credibility whatsoever. This entire thread is based upon a deliberate lie.
Click to expand...

You know that is untrue.

You know that the papers he sent into the grievance study journals were acts of deliberate exposure designed to show what a load of crap the subjects are. That entrapment might be a reasonable charge but he is highly honourable and trustworthy.

That your justification for avoiding reality all the time has been blown away and this upsets you is not something that the rest of the world has any sympathy with.
 
JustHanging said:
Actually no. Science worked exactly the way it is supposed to. They lied, submitting phony data. Of course sometimes people do this, and of course sometimes it will make it into journals. Eventually the frauds are discovered, and their work is overturned. That's what science does.

Usually such fraudulent behavior spells the end of a career. I hope that is the case once again.
Click to expand...

After many papers got through they were found out before they got to shout about it themselves. It was not science that was or is done in the journals they targeted.
 
devildavid said:
Someone else's actions or behavior is always unknown to us. There is no certain knowledge of it. We can only surmise or assume based on whatever evidence and clues we get from their behavior when we can observe them.

I am not sure what you mean by being right vs. knowing. If I know something I am right about it. Otherwise, I can't claim to know it.
Click to expand...

You know that.

It may or may not be right.

I think it is wrong. In fact I am sure I could demonstrate it by showing something where you claimed something with certainty and were wrong.

The point of religion is that they know they are right. That they aren't causes a clash with the real world.
 
Tim the plumber said:
You know that.

It may or may not be right.

I think it is wrong. In fact I am sure I could demonstrate it by showing something where you claimed something with certainty and were wrong.

The point of religion is that they know they are right. That they aren't causes a clash with the real world.
Click to expand...

I can't both know something and be wrong about it. No one can possibly know about gods because of the nature of the subject matter, not because of the nature of knowledge. So if someone claims knowledge of things that cannot possibly be known, they do not possess knowledge. It has nothing to do with not being right.
 
devildavid said:
I can't both know something and be wrong about it. No one can possibly know about gods because of the nature of the subject matter, not because of the nature of knowledge. So if someone claims knowledge of things that cannot possibly be known, they do not possess knowledge. It has nothing to do with not being right.
Click to expand...

Huh? Sure you can...there's plenty of false knowledge floating around out there...:roll:
 
devildavid said:
False knowledge is an oxymoron.
Click to expand...

lol...tell that to the people who obtain and spread it...why do you think the world is in the mess it's in?
 
Elvira said:
lol...tell that to the people who obtain and spread it...why do you think the world is in the mess it's in?
Click to expand...

You can spread fake stuff but that does not make it knowledge. True knowledge is redundant as false knowledge is oxymoronic.
 
devildavid said:
You can spread fake stuff but that does not make it knowledge. True knowledge is redundant as false knowledge is oxymoronic.
Click to expand...

Nope...2 separate things...there is knowledge and then there is truth...
 
Elvira said:
Nope...2 separate things...there is knowledge and then there is truth...
Click to expand...

Nope, not separate things. No such thing as truth, the way you are using it. Things can be true but it does not make them truths.
 
devildavid said:
Nope, not separate things. No such thing as truth, the way you are using it. Things can be true but it does not make them truths.
Click to expand...

So, they are falses?:2razz:
 
devildavid said:
Nope. So you don't understand the difference between something being true and the concept of truth?
Click to expand...

Truth is truth...it's not that complicated...:roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom