If everyone was atheist...

[Spreadbury]

This mention of Islam and Radical Islam does make one consider the topic again; it would appear that unanimous Atheism would put a stop to such conflicts- while on the contrary, a unanimous religion would merely lead to an endless circle, probably entering a similar state to the one which we witness around us now.

I will however acknowledge the dangers of unanimous beliefs; it tends to make one all powerful, and in the words of Baron Acton: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." We would more than likely see something similar to the Dark Ages- but perhaps opposite with more technological advancements and philosophic repression.

[Chavi]

Faith can defy

And so, faith does not transcend logic as Chavi puts it. That is too nice a word for what it does. More, faith is the opposite of logic. It has no axioms, it does not follow any rational progression. Faith is the equivalent of logic's step brother who buries his head in the sand during a fight and says "LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA"

And that is why it is so comfortable to so many, because it takes away all the difficult questioning and investigation of what actually happened. We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend that there is no complexity to all of the difficult questions that we ask.

Why do you assume that all faith = blind faith?

Faith of that variety is blind by definition.

I've battled my fare share of crazy "LA LA LA CAN"T HEAR YOU" fundamentalists as well, but these are often the radical minority. How can you be so quick to judge 3000 years of religious thought as absolutely illogical and incompatible with modern science? If this is indeed your belief, then it is presumptuous to say the least.

[Yitzi_K]

Abortion is still a fairly Taboo topic, and because of religions power, Parliament still finds it difficult to legislate on such issues.

Did you ever consider that this may in fact be a good thing? If religion is holding the slipping (or changing) of moral standards in check, that is not a bad thing. And yes, legalising abortion would absolutely represent a slipping in moral standards.

[Chavi]

I will however acknowledge the dangers of unanimous beliefs; it tends to make one all powerful, and in the words of Baron Acton: "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

I used this quote when comparing VN to an oligarchy. Needless to say, the oligarchs were not impressed. . .

[Spreadbury]

Abortion is still a fairly Taboo topic, and because of religions power, Parliament still finds it difficult to legislate on such issues.

Did you ever consider that this may in fact be a good thing? If religion is holding the slipping (or changing) of moral standards in check, that is not a bad thing. And yes, legalising abortion would absolutely represent a slipping in moral standards.

Poor attitude. You reject the obvious mental and physiological concerns in respect to the mothers wellbeing that must be considered when deciding what should be on such an issue.

[enwiabe]

Faith can defy

And so, faith does not transcend logic as Chavi puts it. That is too nice a word for what it does. More, faith is the opposite of logic. It has no axioms, it does not follow any rational progression. Faith is the equivalent of logic's step brother who buries his head in the sand during a fight and says "LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA"

And that is why it is so comfortable to so many, because it takes away all the difficult questioning and investigation of what actually happened. We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend that there is no complexity to all of the difficult questions that we ask.

Why do you assume that all faith = blind faith?

Faith of that variety is blind by definition.

I've battled my fare share of crazy "LA LA LA CAN"T HEAR YOU" fundamentalists as well, but these are often the radical minority. How can you be so quick to judge 3000 years of religious thought as absolutely illogical and incompatible with modern science? If this is indeed your belief, then it is presumptuous to say the least.

You cannot prove religion in any meaningful way. You have admitted yourself that faith is illogical, so why are you now so quick to defend it as somehow logical or scientific? It isn't. You cannot logically prove god (as it currently stands) so belief in god is faith. And it is blind.

[Spreadbury]

How can you be so quick to judge 3000 years of religious thought as absolutely illogical and incompatible with modern science?

Faith transcends logic because it does not require logic. You can believe in whatever you like, and in can be completely irrational to everybody else but yourself. Faith can defy scientific theory, because belief and thought do not require the scientific theory to operate.

Contradictory

[enwiabe]

How can you be so quick to judge 3000 years of religious thought as absolutely illogical and incompatible with modern science?

Faith transcends logic because it does not require logic. You can believe in whatever you like, and in can be completely irrational to everybody else but yourself. Faith can defy scientific theory, because belief and thought do not require the scientific theory to operate.

Contradictory

thx

[Chavi]

How can you be so quick to judge 3000 years of religious thought as absolutely illogical and incompatible with modern science?

Faith transcends logic because it does not require logic. You can believe in whatever you like, and in can be completely irrational to everybody else but yourself. Faith can defy scientific theory, because belief and thought do not require the scientific theory to operate.

Contradictory

I don't see a contradiction here if you make a distinction between 'faith' and 'religious thought', which can at times work independently

[Yitzi_K]

Faith can defy

And so, faith does not transcend logic as Chavi puts it. That is too nice a word for what it does. More, faith is the opposite of logic. It has no axioms, it does not follow any rational progression. Faith is the equivalent of logic's step brother who buries his head in the sand during a fight and says "LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA"

And that is why it is so comfortable to so many, because it takes away all the difficult questioning and investigation of what actually happened. We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend that there is no complexity to all of the difficult questions that we ask.

Why do you assume that all faith = blind faith?

Faith of that variety is blind by definition.

I don't believe my faith to be 'blind'. Sure, there are things that I believe in which I cannot prove, but nonetheless, I don't believe in Judaism simply because I am told to. (Something you've suggested numerous times). I suggest you read the book Permission to Believe, which provides an excellent case for G-d's existence.

[enwiabe]

I think we need to make a distinction between 'faith' and 'religious thought', which can at times work independently

I think you mean you can interchange them to manipulate your arguments to suit your foregone conclusion rather than any meaningful inquisition into the truth.

[enwiabe]

Faith can defy

And so, faith does not transcend logic as Chavi puts it. That is too nice a word for what it does. More, faith is the opposite of logic. It has no axioms, it does not follow any rational progression. Faith is the equivalent of logic's step brother who buries his head in the sand during a fight and says "LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA LA"

And that is why it is so comfortable to so many, because it takes away all the difficult questioning and investigation of what actually happened. We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend that there is no complexity to all of the difficult questions that we ask.

Why do you assume that all faith = blind faith?

Faith of that variety is blind by definition.

I don't believe my faith to be 'blind'. Sure, there are things that I believe in which I cannot prove, but nonetheless, I don't believe in Judaism simply because I am told to. (Something you've suggested numerous times). I suggest you read the book Permission to Believe, which provides an excellent case for G-d's existence.

You have been indoctrinated with religion since you could first understand English. So as much as you are unwilling to admit it, you have had very little choice in your religious faith.

Secondly, I am sure that book provides an argument. But it is an argument which is not backed by any solid evidence (hearsay and circumstantial at *best*) and cannot prove god with any shred of conclusivity.

[Yitzi_K]

Abortion is still a fairly Taboo topic, and because of religions power, Parliament still finds it difficult to legislate on such issues.

Did you ever consider that this may in fact be a good thing? If religion is holding the slipping (or changing) of moral standards in check, that is not a bad thing. And yes, legalising abortion would absolutely represent a slipping in moral standards.

Poor attitude. You reject the obvious mental and physiological concerns in respect to the mothers wellbeing that must be considered when deciding what should be on such an issue.

I'm not saying that there are never cases where abortion should be allowed, but every case must be examined on it's own merits. But the general attitude of 'Well I didn't wear a condom, and I don't really want a baby right now' should not be a legal reason for terminating a foetus.

[Chavi]

I think we need to make a distinction between 'faith' and 'religious thought', which can at times work independently

I think you mean you can interchange them to manipulate your arguments to suit your foregone conclusion rather than any meaningful inquisition into the truth.

Let faith be the belief in a diety - God, mother nature, the cookie monster
Let religious thought be the accumulation of thousand of years of literature relating to the set of laws and lifestyles that have developed parallel to (and often in consequence to) faith.

Where is the contradiction here?

[Spreadbury]

I suggest you read the book Permission to Believe, which provides an excellent case for G-d's existence.

No reliable case can exist for either side. While a scientist can claim that evolution explains life as it is today. A person who believes in religion could simply claim "evolution is the work of god."