Posts by BurnTheShips

208

Self Deceit and Faith.

by hillary_step in

jw
friends

this thread is inspired by a comment made on another thread, but i thought it would make an interesting discussion.. self deceit is described as a "misconception that is favorable to the person who holds it".

my premise is that faith is a form of self-deceit - lying to oneself.. so, i would ask of the "faithful" the following questions and would request that they be read carefully to ensure no that there is no misunderstanding of purpose.. 1) in what way is faith not self-deception?.

2) is a person who has faith in a god that you do not believe in, say for example siva, practicing a form of self-deception?.

BurnTheShips

You see, the concept of a God may not require self-deception

So we agree finally!

Or are you doublespeaking? I have seen your wordplay and semantics juggling before to get yourself ou of cramped spots.

Burn

62

God and Evolution

by BurnTheShips in

during the second half of the nineteenth century, it became common to speak of a war between science and religion.

but over the course of the twentieth century, that hostility gradually subsided.

science should not try to become religion, nor should religion seek to take the place of science.

BurnTheShips

[His father served in both the Bavarian State Police (Landespolizei) and the German national Regular Police (Ordnungspolizei) before retiring in 1937 to the town of Traunstein. The Sunday Times described the older Ratzinger as "an anti-Nazi whose attempts to rein in Hitler’s Brown Shirts forced the family to move several times.".......Following his 14th birthday in 1941, he joined the Hitler Youth, membership in which was legally required from March 25, 1939. [7] According to National Catholic Reporter correspondent and biographer John Allen, Ratzinger was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend meetings. Ratzinger has mentioned that a Nazi mathematics professor arranged reduced tuition payments for him at seminary. This theoretically required documentation of attendance at Hitler Youth activities (deliberately planned at Sunday mornings at that stage, to prevent church attendance) - however, according to Ratzinger, his professor arranged that the young seminary student did not need to attend those gatherings to receive a scholarship.........In late April or early May, days or weeks before the German surrender, Ratzinger deserted. Desertion was widespread during the last weeks of the war, even though punishable by death (executions, frequently extrajudicial, continued to the end)]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_Pope_Benedict_XVI

It isn't like you seem to be making it sound. It really doesn't discredit him IMHO.

Burn

208

Self Deceit and Faith.

by hillary_step in

jw
friends

this thread is inspired by a comment made on another thread, but i thought it would make an interesting discussion.. self deceit is described as a "misconception that is favorable to the person who holds it".

my premise is that faith is a form of self-deceit - lying to oneself.. so, i would ask of the "faithful" the following questions and would request that they be read carefully to ensure no that there is no misunderstanding of purpose.. 1) in what way is faith not self-deception?.

2) is a person who has faith in a god that you do not believe in, say for example siva, practicing a form of self-deception?.

BurnTheShips

Partly correct. I do not find convincing evidence for one kind becoming another kind. Sparrows beaks, coloration, etc may adapt to their environment over time, but there is no convincing evidence that the sparrow ever became anything but a sparrow, as just one example.

I'm afraid I can't agree with you there BA. Several species are arguably transitional. Archeopteryx and mudskippers come to mind. Now, if I am proven wrong, so be it! Also, I am not denying that a Creator NEVER intervened, he may have, but that the way evolution is describes generally maps well to what we find out there. I do believe however that we humans are more than a product of the process, we are a special case.

Respectfully,

Burn

62

God and Evolution

by BurnTheShips in

during the second half of the nineteenth century, it became common to speak of a war between science and religion.

but over the course of the twentieth century, that hostility gradually subsided.

science should not try to become religion, nor should religion seek to take the place of science.

BurnTheShips

You tell me, you're the one saying it's a belief system.

This is getting old. But I will post for the benefit of onlookers.

A belief system can refer to

a religion. See list of religions or
a world view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_system

Now you're probably going to tell me that atheism is not a philosophy or world view.

Burn

62

God and Evolution

by BurnTheShips in

during the second half of the nineteenth century, it became common to speak of a war between science and religion.

but over the course of the twentieth century, that hostility gradually subsided.

science should not try to become religion, nor should religion seek to take the place of science.

BurnTheShips

What beliefs, ideology and philosophy stem from atheism?

Perhaps more correct:

What beliefs, ideology and philosophy does atheism stem from?

Burn

62

God and Evolution

by BurnTheShips in

during the second half of the nineteenth century, it became common to speak of a war between science and religion.

but over the course of the twentieth century, that hostility gradually subsided.

science should not try to become religion, nor should religion seek to take the place of science.

BurnTheShips

I think I missed this. Would you please present your evidence that "bad things" are done in the name of atheism for my perusal.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/146941/2671983/post.ashx#2671983

62

God and Evolution

by BurnTheShips in

during the second half of the nineteenth century, it became common to speak of a war between science and religion.

but over the course of the twentieth century, that hostility gradually subsided.

science should not try to become religion, nor should religion seek to take the place of science.

BurnTheShips

Surely you can do better than that.

Do I have to? Its hrair to one in here.

Sounds like you're losing, Burn , and what's worse, taking a very meaningful comment, deserving of response, as some sort of personal insult.
I'm sure it wasn't intended that way, but you've felt a need to dismiss the poster. Touched a nerve, perhaps?

No I didn't. I merely turned the comment on itself.

Do I seem nervy to you?

Burn

62

God and Evolution

by BurnTheShips in

during the second half of the nineteenth century, it became common to speak of a war between science and religion.

but over the course of the twentieth century, that hostility gradually subsided.

science should not try to become religion, nor should religion seek to take the place of science.

BurnTheShips

1) A defect; a fault; an error; a blemish; an imperfection; as, the vices of a political constitution; the vices of a horse.
2) A mild failing or flaw in a persons character or personality.
3) A flaw, defect, or bad habit.
As to your next statement:

I pretty much integrated those meanings in the comment you respond to.

An absurd statement, undone by your own use of the word "often" and the use of personal moral judgments as opposed to providing evidence for your statement.

I use "often" so as not to say ALL. Because I think it is not always true of all. does that compute? Try to learn a little nuance, Hillary Step. It'll help you scale that face and see beyond the summit.

Dawkins statement would suggesting that "faith" is a vice in the sense, not of moral corruption, but in the sense of a flawed viewpoint that a person hangs then hangs all their flawed philosophies upon.

I disagree with that. It is not flawed at all.

If science found proof of the supernatural, then this position would change.

Science is only equipped to explain the natural. This can never change. You have a very dim understanding of the epistemological limits of scientific knowlege HS.

As you have previously admitted on another thread that faith is "the belief in something that cannot be proved", how can Dawkins be wrong in describing it as a "vice"?

How can he be right?

Unbelief, or "unfaith" as you call it, is not a religion, a way of thought, or even a philosophy.

It most certainly is "a way of thought" or a philosophy, or an ideolology, and it comes in many flavors and variants, much like belief or faith does.

My feeling is that you do not understand what atheism really is. I also see that your understanding of evolution as a process is also quite innacurate.

Huh? LOL.

You live in a cramped world HS. I am quite free to believe that there is a considerable amount of settled order and inevitable development in the universe that can be explicated by means of the scientific method. But you are not allowed to admit into your mechanism the slightest speck of spiritualism or mote of miracle lest the cogs seize up.

Burn

62