3 ms·

To say that religion “knows” is to be fundamentally unaware of religion. The core tenant of judeo-Christian belief systems is one of piety - being humble and ac

To say that religion “knows” is to be fundamentally unaware of religion. The core tenant of judeo-Christian belief systems is one of piety - being humble and accepting the fallibility of humans and thirsting to overcome those imperfections by studying the universe to better understand the divine principals which we call “truth.”

anthk 5y ago
He, good joke. Then they should kick the prayings and beliefs out and just start doing... science.
- splithalf 5y ago
  Yes compared to “anthk”, Newton was an idiot. “He”indeed.
  - anthk 5y ago
    Argumentum ad autoritam. Something said from Newton wont make it true.
    - splithalf 5y ago
      No, I was making an empirical argument: most great scientists have been religious. It would not be too hard to quantify this if you scraped a few Wikipedia links.
      - anthk 5y ago
        >most great scientists have been religious So what? Argumentum ad populum again. Seriously, your country needs a hard basis on logic, math and scientific method. If not, your are doomed. Hard.
cogman10 5y ago
Yeah... And how many religions would accept someone that says "I don't think we have enough evidence for the existence of god". Or "This holy text appears to have some flaws that make me question whether or not it was divinely inspired". Religions are specifically claiming that they know a fundamental truth about existence. Their core tenants are one of knowing a truth that doesn't have supporting evidence and cannot be falsified.
- splithalf 5y ago
  We are talking about religion, not religious institutions. According to bible, these are not the same. Another key theme of religion that atheists seem oblivious to. The important point here is to understand that all powerful institutional hierarchies can and will become corrupt. Religion is meant to bypass corrupt religious institutions by design; there’s a higher authority.
  - cogman10 5y ago
    How do you know the bible should be used as a source of truth? Do you actually question the veracity of biblical claims? How do you determine which parts of the bible are inspired and which aren't? This has nothing to do with religious institutes and everything to do with a fundamental claim of the religious. Reading your post here, I take it you believe the bible is from god or a higher authority. Do you ever question that belief?
    - splithalf 5y ago
      I take the Bible and related texts to be the key document(s) upon which the religious beliefs in question are ultimately based. For believers, the Bible/Torah/Koran are of more importance than the institutions, the priesthood, etc... If you want to talk about religious beliefs you would do well to focus on the scripture. Why are my personal beliefs relevant?
- sundarurfriend 5y ago
  > And how many religions would accept someone that says "I don't think we have enough evidence for the existence of god" Buddhism, for one, would not only accept that someone but would say it loud and clear on its own.

anthk 5y ago

He, good joke. Then they should kick the prayings and beliefs out and just start doing... science.

splithalf 5y ago
Yes compared to “anthk”, Newton was an idiot. “He”indeed.
- anthk 5y ago
  Argumentum ad autoritam. Something said from Newton wont make it true.
  - splithalf 5y ago
    No, I was making an empirical argument: most great scientists have been religious. It would not be too hard to quantify this if you scraped a few Wikipedia links.
    - anthk 5y ago
      >most great scientists have been religious So what? Argumentum ad populum again. Seriously, your country needs a hard basis on logic, math and scientific method. If not, your are doomed. Hard.

cogman10 5y ago

Yeah... And how many religions would accept someone that says "I don't think we have enough evidence for the existence of god". Or "This holy text appears to have some flaws that make me question whether or not it was divinely inspired". Religions are specifically claiming that they know a fundamental truth about existence. Their core tenants are one of knowing a truth that doesn't have supporting evidence and cannot be falsified.

splithalf 5y ago
We are talking about religion, not religious institutions. According to bible, these are not the same. Another key theme of religion that atheists seem oblivious to. The important point here is to understand that all powerful institutional hierarchies can and will become corrupt. Religion is meant to bypass corrupt religious institutions by design; there’s a higher authority.
- cogman10 5y ago
  How do you know the bible should be used as a source of truth? Do you actually question the veracity of biblical claims? How do you determine which parts of the bible are inspired and which aren't? This has nothing to do with religious institutes and everything to do with a fundamental claim of the religious. Reading your post here, I take it you believe the bible is from god or a higher authority. Do you ever question that belief?
  - splithalf 5y ago
    I take the Bible and related texts to be the key document(s) upon which the religious beliefs in question are ultimately based. For believers, the Bible/Torah/Koran are of more importance than the institutions, the priesthood, etc... If you want to talk about religious beliefs you would do well to focus on the scripture. Why are my personal beliefs relevant?
sundarurfriend 5y ago
> And how many religions would accept someone that says "I don't think we have enough evidence for the existence of god" Buddhism, for one, would not only accept that someone but would say it loud and clear on its own.