Skip to main content

View Diary: The three fatal flaws of Christian doctrine (89 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Again, why persist in "correct" and "incorrect"... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Liberal Thinking

    ...when the basic premise in question can be neither proven nor disproven in any objective fashion?

    There are millions across the belief spectrum (from the extremely devout to nominal faith to 'seekers' to apathetic to agnostic to atheist) who simply practice their belief (or lack thereof) without castigating, attacking or criticizing anyone else's place on the spectrum.

    That seems the right place to be.  We aren't all there yet--and, to be sure, there are far more instances of "believers" publicly castigating "unbelievers" than there are of the reverse case--but we can each "get there" in how we treat each other.

    The word "parent" is supposed to be a VERB, people...

    by wesmorgan1 on Sat Sep 21, 2013 at 07:35:31 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Well I'm certainly not someone who (0+ / 0-)

      wants to attack anyone for what they believe in. We live in a society that is still dominated by religion, and for that reason most of us secularists and agnostics will happily bow our heads as family members say grace at dinner, or silently pretend to pray when asked to a funeral. So it's not really a question of tolerance, aside from maybe a few hardliners like Dawkins and so on.

      That being said, I'm not sure if I can accept this idea that there are no "correct" and "incorrect" beliefs. In what sense is this intended? Are you trying to suggest that we should be totally relativistic and never judge anyone, to the point of putting an insane person's views on par with a scientist's?

      Or is it more that religion and science should be viewed as residing on two separate tracks, thereby resolving any contradictions between them?

      I guess if we construct a wall and try to compartmentalize "material reality" and "supernatural reality" it might be possible. But what is "supernatural reality" in the first place? It is an actual state of being that exists outside of actual reality, or just a philosophical interpretation overlaid onto reality? I can accept the second one, but it wouldn't be "true" in any meaningful sense, because in that case it exists only in peoples' minds.

      It also strikes me that when it comes to actually-existing religious practice, this distinction is rarely adhered to. The primitive humans mentioned above for instance didn't think there was a wall between the material and the spiritual. They thought doing a rain dance would actually lead to rain.

      Apparently nothing will ever teach these people that the other 99 percent of the population exist. —George Orwell

      by ukit on Sat Sep 21, 2013 at 09:37:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site