The Da Vinci Code
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without religion…or a world without science?
Srungeer Simha wrote: "And if we talk about conflicts, religion is not at fault, blame humans... I am sure Allah or Jesus never asked their followers to kill others. "Just one example: Please explain what this passage means to you?
Deuteronomy 13:6-17
Srungeer Simha wrote: "And if we talk about conflicts, religion is not at fault, blame humans."Guns don't kill people, people kill people!
I am sure Allah or Jesus never asked their followers to kill others.
You're sure? You might want to pick up one of their books sometime.
In the future there is no religion, everybody is an atheist yet there are still wars, Reason : Who discovered atheism?
That doesn't even make any sense.
MrEkitten wrote: "Srungeer Simha wrote: "And if we talk about conflicts, religion is not at fault, blame humans... I am sure Allah or Jesus never asked their followers to kill others. "Just one example: Please ex..."
When I said " I am sure Jesus or Allah never asked their followers to kill others" I didnt mean The Bible or The Quran
I dont mean any offense to believers but the current versions of the holy books are the products of so many modifications that they are mere interpretations of the original versions
Scott wrote: "Srungeer Simha wrote: "And if we talk about conflicts, religion is not at fault, blame humans."Guns don't kill people, people kill people!
I am sure Allah or Jesus never asked their followers to..."
Why doesnt it make sense to you ?
If people in the past could fight over which religion is the almighty one why cant people in an atheist future fight over who invented atheism ?
Religion and science balance each other out... without one the other almost has no purpose. Also, without religion, science would have no morale or ethics. Without science, religions would stumble blindly into beliefs that have no point or make no sense. Either way the world would become a chaotic mess. We need both.
J. wrote: "Religion and science balance each other out... without one the other almost has no purpose. Also, without religion, science would have no morale or ethics. Without science, religions would stumble ..."I agree with the part about the world descending into a chaotic mess without both religion and science, because its ultimately a personal choice what people will believe in and there are so many people who subscribe to logic
And fact is that people have to believe in the something and when they cant believe in themselves they believe in something much more powerful- GOD
Srungeer Simha wrote: "Why doesnt it make sense to you ?If people in the past could fight over which religion is the almighty one why cant people in an atheist future fight over who invented atheism ?"No one invented atheism. Everyone's an atheist until someone teaches them otherwise.
No one invented atheism. Everyone's an atheist until someone teaches them otherwise. It was a joke.
The point being that we'd be far from peace even if religion never existed. It's human nature to squabble and fight over everything, not just religion.
Sheila wrote: "It was a joke. The point being that we'd be far from peace even if religion never existed. It's human natu..."
Sadly, I think he is totally serious.
And of course there would still be some war; but if you take religion off the table you eliminate a lot, maybe even most, of it.
Maria wrote: "Is it just me or does this comment not make sense? "It's just you.
Srungeer Simha wrote: "And if we talk about conflicts, religion is not at fault, blame humans. People will always find a reason to fight, they'll just use religion or whatever reason as justification. "If religion is not to blame for any of the conflicts in it's name, then it's certainly not deserving of credit for any good done in it's name. You can't have it both ways.
And if it's not to blame for the bad and it doesn't deserve any credit for the good, then it doesn't really do anything at all. That means it's pointless. If it's pointless, then we certainly don't need it.
Gerd wrote: "Aside from it being a bit pointless a question if a scientist does or doesn't have faith, "Since Zaheer's comment was that Science causes religious belief (leads to it), then it is actually of the utmost importance. In fact, it's hard to imagine anything being more on point to his comment than that.
Zaheer wrote: "I have noticed however, that some people (mainly atheists, not being judgmental here but just an observation) are not even willing to admit that God might exist"Sounds like you've never really spoken to any atheists since every atheist I've ever encountered says basically the same thing: there is no evidence to support the claim, so it is unlikely there is one.
Built into that statement is the idea that should any facts at all come to light which indicate anything resembling a god, they would consider those facts like they consider any others.
Further, I think you are being deliberately dishonest by attempting to paint atheists as the ones who will not admit the possibility of being wrong. Very few religious people will even consider the possibility that there may not be a god. In fact, many religions preach even considering it to be a profound sin and failure of the person to have faith. Surely, you are not disputing this.
Tareq wrote: "why are we separating between them"Because one cares about facts and one does not (it cares about "faith"), so they are two different things. Being two different things, it is wise to separate them. You might as well ask why we consider trees to be separate from airplanes.
Daniel wrote: "Maria wrote: "Is it just me or does this comment not make sense? "It's just you."
It's the world's longest run-on sentence - please enlighten me then, oh great one!
Maria wrote: "Daniel wrote: "Maria wrote: "Is it just me or does this comment not make sense? "It's just you."
It's the world's longest run-on sentence - please enlighten me then, oh great one!"
I think the world's longest run-on sentence was by Proust, running some 20 pages, but I'm sure Joyce gives it a run for it's money at some point. I'd be surprised if this sentence makes the top 50,000.
I'm not sure why you find the sentence I wrote to be confusing. If a person is asking if science or religion is more important, but they are doing it while living a life science has provided from the top down in nearly endless layers, then that is worth noting.
Again, I can't imagine why it's confusing. It doesn't take a "great one" as you seem to think. No one else seemed to find it confusing except one guy who assumed it was directed at his comment.
at first, I went with a world without religion but when I actually thought about it, I felt that a world without religion would be pointless. by saying so I don't mean that science isn't real. its so real and so full of facts and theories and the thing is, the more you study about science the more you wonder how it all began, all the complexities and the countless networks... I mean it could not have happened out of the blue and someone had to be responsible. so, my point is, I believe in science but I couldn't live in a world without religion. they're both so interconnected.(p.s. Einstein agrees)
What a conundrum. In my opinion, they aren't actually mutually exclusive. I think religion and science have always gone hand in hand, somewhat. They claim to disprove each other but really are mostly based on one another. There are instances like the ascension of christ the Virgin Mary that is blatant in its adversary to science. But the core message it sends, if anything supports science, the phycological stand on having a reason to untie a people, the power of belief where that belief maybe religious or scientific. Loving one another that is in the commandments can be said to have scientific proof closely examined. There is an obvious affect we have when we are loved and our behaviour is proof of this so is the chemical endorphins realised in the brain.
I think the major points in every religion can be correlated with science, but of course we need something to differentiate one from the other, reasons to belong to one group over the other, religion calls this faith, science proof. Its all the same language, really when the distractions are removed.
I have a blog where i review books, and films and post poetry and thoughts on all three. I will be posting a review on Dan Brown's Da Vinci code soon. Take a look. http://tealighttaylor.wordpress.com
Hiba wrote: "(p.s. Einstein agrees) "No he didn't and it would be nice if people would stop spreading this lie.
Sandra wrote: "religion calls this faith, science proof."In what way is proof the same thing as faith?
Religion is (to quote a famous dicator) the opium of the people.Some people, even smart scientific types, need to believe in something higher than themselves, even in the face of logic - and with no shred of proof behind it.
Take death for instance. How depressed would some people be when they see children dying of cancer, teens killed by drunk drivers, their parents and spouses getting old and dying - if they thought that was it. They need the hope of heaven and the afterlife so they won't be so depressed. Even though there is no proof that it exists. It calms them, lets them go along in their daily routine, rather than curling up in a catatonic fetal position.
Also, some people need what they perceive as help from a higher power to get through trials - loss of a job, health issues, family problems. It's more than they feel they can handle so it gives them a sense of strength to be able to throw those burdens on a deity that can shoulder them and help them cope.
Religion might help a prospective murderer, thief or pedophile reconsider before acting on their desires - they don't want to offend God.
So, is religion or faith in a deity a good thing? It can be. Foundless or not, if it keeps people in line and helps people to be happy.
It can also be a terrible thing, a racket and a snare to get weak minded people to send in their life savings to a TV evangelist to hold their place in heaven. It can incite to war based on religous zeal.
It can bring terrible feelings of guilt to someone who thinks they are not living up to the moral standards set out.
Hiba wrote: "I don't mean that science isn't real. its so real and so full of facts and theories and the thing is, the more you study about science the more you wonder how it all began, all the complexities and the countless networks... Then you do more science to find out more.
I mean it could not have happened out of the blue and someone had to be responsible."
It could have but even if someone is responsible, you're left with the problem of where that someone came from. It doesn't answer anything.
Daniel wrote: "Sandra wrote: "religion calls this faith, science proof."In what way is proof the same thing as faith?"
Prof is really just perceived belief and so is faith. What you claim as prof one day can be disproved the next. The reason you trust what was "prof", when you did was because you believed it to be true. And faith by definition is the belief in anything.
I hope this helps.
"Faith is the evident demonstration of things hoped for and the assured expectation of things not yet beheld."
Sandra wrote: "What you claim as prof one day can be disproved the next."Incorrect. Evidence may (and often does) turn out to be incomplete, but what is evidence today never ceases to be evidence. Either something is evidence or it is not.
Faith requires nothing but the choice to believe something, even in the face of evidence or despite a lack of evidence.
Faith and evidence are about as close to opposites as two broad concepts can be.
Maria wrote: ""Faith is the evident demonstration of things hoped for and the assured expectation of things not yet beheld.""A common quote, though it seems to have been run through google translate since it's entirely muddled here. Unfortunately, it is not evidence, even if a popular quote says so.
Faith is belief without regard to evidence.
Like I said, if there was evidence, you would not need faith, so it only serves a purpose when the evidence contradicts the position you are taking or when there is a total lack of evidence.
Somehow, large portions of society have been manipulated into thinking that faith is a virtue, though there doesn't seem to be any good reason to consider it as such.
Daniel wrote: "Sandra wrote: "What you claim as prof one day can be disproved the next."Incorrect. Evidence may (and often does) turn out to be incomplete, but what is evidence today never ceases to be evidenc..."
You're entitled to your opinion, I totally disagree but, I am not surprised by your evaluation.
I'll just leave you with this question, why is something considered evidence? (really think about it). Use specific scenarios.
Also, the prof of something relies on interpretation, any forensic analyst will tell you this, this is why in court the defence and prosecutors often find their own specialist to testify on their interpretation of a "fact". This interpretation is based on their belief system. Hence why, these specialists could have contradictory notions.
Sandra wrote: "Also, the prof of something relies on interpretation, any forensic analyst will tell you this, this is why in court the defence and prosecutors often find their own specialist to testify on their interpretation of a "fact". This interpretation is based on their belief system. Hence why, these specialists could have contradictory notions. "Yes, yes, and Fox News hires their own scientists to "interpret" the facts of climate change. Facts are still facts.
Do you really not see the difference between "here is the evidence" and "well, judge, I don't have anything to show you but I have faith that that person is the murderer"?
Sandra wrote: "You're entitled to your opinion, I totally disagree but, I am not surprised by your evaluation."Yes, yes. I am so predictable what with my attachment to reality and all.
Sandra wrote: "this is why in court the defence and prosecutors often find their own specialist to testify on their interpretation of a "fact""
You said it right there. There are interpretations of facts, but those interpretations are not facts. Facts are something else. Because two different people interpret a fact differently does not actually change or affect the fact itself in any way. The fact is always the fact. On top of that people lay their opinion about the fact. That opinion is also something different from the fact. The fact stays the fact. Always. That's what makes it a fact. That's the difference between facts and opinions or between evidence and feelings (or faith, for that matter).
For example, it is not my opinion that facts are facts. It is simply true. Disagreeing with it simply puts you in opposition to reality. And that's fine. Live in a fantasy-land if you want, but don't expect a pat on the back about it or try to convince yourself or others that there is some higher virtue in just making stuff up and calling it real.
The most important difference between a sane person and an insane person is the ability to distinguish between facts and fantasy. Facts are the realm of science. Fantasy is the realm of faith and religion.
If I am swimming in a lake and the guy next to me says that I am standing on the surface of the sun, we do not have a difference of opinion (to which we are both entitled). He is simply incorrect.
Daniel wrote: Faith requires nothing but the choice to believe something, even in the face of evidence or despite a lack of evidence.
What you're talking about is belief in the unseen. That is indeed a part of religion. But religion is much more than that. For example, if you see what's said in the Quran and it turns out 80% of what is said is true (just talking about descriptive issues here, not legislation, etc.), you would probably say that this is a trustworthy source. That makes it much more likely to actually believe the remaining 20% if you don't have hard evidence to prove it wrong.
Zaheer wrote: " if you see what's said in the Quran and it turns out 80% of what is said is true (just talking about descriptive issues here, not legislation, etc.), you would probably say that this is a trustworthy source. That makes it much more likely to actually believe the remaining 20% if you don't have hard evidence to prove it wrong. "I see how you get there, but I don't think it's true (despite making a kind of intuitive sense). For example:
"Lions exist. Bears exist. Trees exist. Oranges exist. People exist. Bees exist. Rocks exist. Houses exist. Unicorns exist. Fairies exist."
80% of those statements are true and the other two have no hard evidence against them. Does that mean one should rationally believe in unicorns and fairies?
I forgot to reply to the issue of 'evidence' here. There is plenty of 'evidence' supporting religion and the existence of God. There is no tangible proof, but I'm talking about logical arguments based on observations. (You could compare the concept of the existence of God to theoretical physics. You can make observations and in some cases not even that, without tangible evidence. You base your theories on these observations and on the knowledge you have.)There are plenty of arguments that support religion, just googling will result in plenty of sites which have summed it up nicely.
Daniel wrote:"I see how you get there, but I don't think it's true (despite making a kind of intuitive sense). For example:
"Lions exist. Bears exist. Trees exist. Oranges exist. People exist. Bees exist. Rocks exist. Houses exist. Unicorns exist. Fairies exist."
80% of those statements are true and the other two have no hard evidence against them. Does that mean one should rationally believe in unicorns and fairies?"
What you just did is sum up a bunch of different statements. The Quran on the other hand is a book. If you have a textbook on physiology, that would be a fair comparison. 80% (just an example) is evidence based and proven and the remaining 20% is not proven to be true, but it's based on theories. In this case you would make the assumption that the 20% is true. However when you come across evidence that completely proves something wrong, there is no denying that the hypothesis was wrong and you have to formulate a new one.
So basically, if today someone would provide irrefutable evidence (not just guesswork) that something in a religious book is false, you cannot continue believing in that. (for example Christians who still believe the earth is 7000 years old, was created in literally 6 days etc. despite irrefutable evidence that proves otherwise)
Scott wrote: "Sandra wrote: "Also, the prof of something relies on interpretation, any forensic analyst will tell you this, this is why in court the defence and prosecutors often find their own specialist to tes..."I had no clue this would lead to a debate. Please just answer my initial question, what makes something evidence?
I cannot continue to try to explain this, your either not getting it, or you're not ready to hear it.
And the scenario you gave; "here's the evident" vs faith ... are really one and the same.
Before this stars a new debate, let me just say you need to answer the question what makes something evidence. Some ppl will get this, Some will not. If you don't thats ok, its your belief that i am wrong.
Daniel wrote: "Sandra wrote: "You're entitled to your opinion, I totally disagree but, I am not surprised by your evaluation."Yes, yes. I am so predictable what with my attachment to reality and all.
Sandra w..."
Wow! You sound antagonistic :) Look, I can't say more, cause clearly you're not listening. Answer the question 'what makes something fact?' You probably won't get it even then. Regardless, it is ok to believe your right. It is a beautiful thing, belief.
The last thing you said, about the guy saying you were standing on the surface of the sun. What if you were? Or maybe you really believed you were swimming and you weren't would that make you any less entailed to that belief?
P.S I never said if i was religious or not.
message 237:
by
Terence M - [Quot libros, quam breve tempus!]
(last edited Aug 27, 2014 06:15PM)
(new)
-
rated it 2 stars
![Terence M - [Quot libros, quam breve tempus!]](https://images.gr-assets.com/users/1712357414p1/6658001.jpg)
Sandra: Perhaps Daniel might not mind if I answer your question: "what makes something evidence?" Evidence: "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. "Evident:"Clearly seen or understood; obvious;"
(Latin evidens, evident: 'obvious to the eye or mind')
Evidence, basically, is anything presented in support of an assertion. Thus all facts are evidence of something, some belief, assertion or understanding.
People who make the assertion, for example, that God exists and expect others to accept this God's existence, must be able to produce evidence (facts) that support their assertion. If they can't, or refuse to do so, then their assertion can be dismissed through lack of evidence, and rightly so.
Atheists, as a rule, make no assertions about the existence or otherwise of gods. They simply say they do not believe that gods exist, just as they do not believe in the existence of unicorns, hobgoblins or Dumbledore. The reasons for these beliefs are quite simple: there is no evidence (facts) that they do.
Belief without evidence (facts) is called faith.
Extraordinary beliefs, such as the belief in the existence of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniloving, omnisicient Abrahamic God, require extraordinary evidence (to paraphrase Carl Sagan)and to all atheists and most other rational human beings, no evidence, let alone extraordinary evidence, has ever been shown to exist.
Sandra wrote: "Please just answer my initial question, what makes something evidence? "I didn't answer it because it's a dumb question. You've clearly convinced yourself that you are thinking on some higher level when really you are just playing a word game with yourself. I can't tell if you realize this or not. What you've done is define the word "faith" such that it includes everything. That's legal and everything but negates the value of the word entirely. I explained this in several posts earlier which you ignored (an odd thing to do since you wrote two posts in a row about how I skipped a question you asked later in the conversation).
If you're going to define the word that way, then why use it? It is only relevant as a term in as much as it covers something not already covered more accurately by another term. Do you understand what I'm saying? I keep explaining this to you and you keep ignoring it while accusing me of ignoring you.
This isn't a matter of me "not being ready to hear it", it's a matter of you being incorrect.
I'll answer your question since you seem to think it's a deep riddle. What makes something evidence is that it is a fact which is relevant to the inquiry or issue at hand. See? It's not that complicated and doesn't require any complicated mental gymnastics.
Since you changed the question in your next response (evidence and facts are not the same thing, despite your using them interchangeably), I'll answer that one too. Facts are objectively verifiable pieces of information. It's that simple.
You keep falling back on this condescending "you are not listening/getting it" bit, but what you seem to be ignoring is the possibility that you are simply not correct. Have you even considered this?
As to my last question, I am not standing on the surface of the sun. That's the point. I could be confused/deluded but then it wouldn't be a fact that I was swimming, it would be my belief. I'm really not sure why you find this so hard to understand. It's only a fact if it's true. It's not a fact if it's not true.
What I think doesn't make any difference one way or the other in terms of whether something is true. That's how facts work. They are true whether we believe them or not. Even if I deny it, 1+1=2. That's not an opinion. It is a fact. What I think is irrelevant. What you think is irrelevant.
You asked if I would be less "entailed to the belief" that I was swimming if I was not actually swimming. I assume you meant "entitled", but the answer is no. I am entitled to believe things that are incorrect. But my believing something that is incorrect does not make it correct. Think about this carefully because it seems like you have so completely sold yourself on this idea but you haven't bothered applying any real logic or thought to it. You continue to confuse what I think about something with what it is. Those are two separate things.
P.S. Show me where I said you were religious.
Sandra wrote: "And the scenario you gave; "here's the evident" vs faith ... are really one and the same"This sentence does not make sense. What post of mine are you referring to?
Sandra wrote: "Some ppl will get this, Some will not"You love to be condescending don't you? Unfortunately, you seem to have ruled out the possibility that I understand perfectly well what you are saying and that what you are saying is incorrect. On what basis have you ruled this out? How have you concluded that it is impossible for something to be true, really and actually true (that's the only way it can all boil down to only belief).
Zaheer wrote: "What you just did is sum up a bunch of different statements. The Quran on the other hand is a book."Your argument is that my example was not printed and bound (a book) so it doesn't count? You said if 80% was true and the other 20% did not have hard evidence against it, then you should believe the other 20%. I showed you a simple example where that is false. Binding is not even a little relevant.
Zaheer wrote: " if today someone would provide irrefutable evidence (not just guesswork) that something in a religious book is false, you cannot continue believing in that."Okay. The Quran says the earth is flat. It is not. You'll probably try to cherry pick verses and call it bad translations, so I'll provide this link which breaks down the meaning of the terms in a variety of verses throughout the book which show that argument to be false:
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Flat_Earth_...
Daniel wrote: "Sandra wrote: "And the scenario you gave; "here's the evident" vs faith ... are really one and the same"This sentence does not make sense. What post of mine are you referring to?"
I think she meant your example of presenting (hard) evidence of a criminal act having been commited by a person versus simply saying I believe it to be so.
How one can come to the conclusion that this is one and the same is beyond me, though.
Daniel wrote: "Zaheer wrote: " if today someone would provide irrefutable evidence (not just guesswork) that something in a religious book is false, you cannot continue believing in that."Okay. The Quran says ..."
This is hardly conclusive evidence. I'll try to keep it brief, since we're wandering really far from the original question here ;)
1. The expression "spreading out" is considered being synonymous to a flat earth. One of the verses says: "made for you the earth like a carpet spread out;" A carpet can be spread out over a non-flat surface, like a spheroid for example. Like the solid crust of the earth is spread out over the non-solid core.
2. The earth is not the 7th heaven, it's part of it. The 7th heaven is our entire universe. This actually reminds me of your (or Scott's) post about the multiverse theory. (One of the theories mentioned a 7-layer multiverse, what a coincidence ;))
3. Even in English there is an expression as "facing north" or "facing south", etc. Facing the Qiblah is the exact same metaphor.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the site you have linked would fall under 'guesswork'. If it's said literally that the earth is flat, that's a different matter. But that's not the case.
P.S. I suggest we continue the discussion about specific matters from the content of religious books somewhere else (if you want to continue at all), since we're getting quite off topic :P
Zaheer wrote: "As I mentioned in an earlier post, the site you have linked would fall under 'guesswork'. If it's said literally that the earth is flat, that's a different matter. But that's not the case. "The example I gave is actually a stronger case for it coming from the book than those that argue for the age of the earth being 6000 years old based on the bible, but you agree with the one that already suits your perspective and dismiss without serious thought (the kind that does not start out with the assumption that the book cannot possibly be wrong) the one that does not.
I expected as much. People tend to disregard information that doesn't suit their desired perspective. You've been doing the same throughout this thread, so I shouldn't have bothered.
For fun, ask yourself this question: would anyone who does not have a vested interest in the Quran being true come to the conclusion that you have? What would an objective person think? Don't answer here. Just ponder it quietly to yourself.
Look at me, making the same mistake right after I acknowledged that it was mistake to try to share information with you. Sorry for being so foolish.
I suppose that foolish or not, I hold out some small hope that you may honestly ask yourself the question.
Let's move on. This line of thought is hardly relevant to the thread anyway.
Daniel wrote: "Sandra wrote: "Some ppl will get this, Some will not"You love to be condescending don't you? Unfortunately, you seem to have ruled out the possibility that I understand perfectly well what you a..."
I am actually not being condescending. But I'll end this debate here. We will clearly never agree.
If we could have a verbal talk perhaps i might communicate my point across better, maybe not.
I see where Daniel is coming from - it's like someone saying that the Bible is inspired by God. How do you know? The Bible says so... :)
Sandra wrote: "Daniel wrote: "Sandra wrote: "Some ppl will get this, Some will not"You love to be condescending don't you? Unfortunately, you seem to have ruled out the possibility that I understand perfectly ..."
It's actually a textbook case of being condescending. Built into your statement "some people will get this, some will not" is that some people are willing or able to think on a deeper and higher level (like you) and everyone else who is unwilling or unable to agree with you is on some lower level and blocked from what you think are super deep insights.
If you had said, for example, that "some people will agree with me and some will not", then it would be totally different. That implies that there are other perspectives which may or may not be better than yours. But your statement clearly says that you have the high truth, and either people go along with you or they are unable or unwilling to "get it".
I'm sure you'll ignore this point as you have every other point made against your perspective.
Of course, condescension is a handy and pedestrian tool for someone who accuses others of dodging questions while ignoring virtually every single question directed their way.
The primary difference between us at this point is that I have considered your opinion and found it lacking. You have not even seriously considered what I'm saying. I know that because not only have you not had a retort to my point other than to keep saying things like "some people don't get it", but also because you avoid every pointed question I ask you about it.
Isn't it interesting that you repeatedly accused me of avoiding your question and then when I clearly answered it (both questions actually since you changed the question without realizing it) and someone else answered it clearly as well, you pretend it never happened?
Maria wrote: "I see where Daniel is coming from - it's like someone saying that the Bible is inspired by God. How do you know? The Bible says so... :)"Your post is unclear. You think that's what I'm doing or that your example is my opinion of what Sandra is doing?
Sorry, Daniel - I didn't see Sandra's comment. I meant I can see what you mean when you say:"would anyone who does not have a vested interest in the Quran being true come to the conclusion that you have? What would an objective person think?"
It's like using the Bible (or Quran) to prove that the Bible (or Quran) is true. "The Bible says so" can't be used as proof of anything unless the person actually believes that the Bible is actually true.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Notebooks of Raymond Chandler; and English Summer: A Gothic Romance (other topics)
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (other topics)
The Two Chambers (other topics)
The Da Vinci Code (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
The Eleven Commandments ? from a naked unshackled mind (other topics)The Notebooks of Raymond Chandler; and English Summer: A Gothic Romance (other topics)
The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature (other topics)
The Two Chambers (other topics)
The Da Vinci Code (other topics)
And if we talk about conflicts, religion is not at fault, blame humans. People will always find a reason to fight, they'll just use religion or whatever reason as justification. I am sure Allah or Jesus never asked their followers to kill others.
There's a brilliant and hilarious South Park episode i'd like to refer here.
In the future there is no religion, everybody is an atheist yet there are still wars, Reason : Who discovered atheism?