The Unbelievers

And one can also apply methodological doubt to one's accustomed to believing attitudes stemming from one's belief systems. Going under self-ciriticism maybe a drastic approach towards traditions you didn't want to belong to in the first place. All in all from the believers perspective the ego projects to be under doubt continuously; I believe but in the reality of occasions I don't believe. So the scrutiny is to act righteously with respect to one's beliefs.

 

Fine with me.

 

Next step to the belief systems of method-willed strangers: huh, let it be noted that I saw a single mother speaking fluent arabic with her daughter today. Isn't it possible she be immigrated from Chechnya, east Turkey, or best of all they were Yiddish from Iran or Georgia. They are believers, and Jewish and never really spoke Hebrew nor English. At this point there is no unbelieving.

Eat your heart out, R. Dawkins.

 

That's amazing. How did you know she was Jewish? Is Dawkins single?

 

I sure hope so.
That sexy accent.
The grandmotherly whisps of white tow.
The red cherubic cheeks, flushed with burning intellectual superiority.

 

Wait a minute. That Arabic-speaking Jewish mother with the kid--he wsn't the father was he? Taking advantage of a poor immigrant lady, just because she was a believer! The rogue! No wonder she was speaking so fluently. Thank God for paternity tests!

 

Only Allah can argue the virtue of over-comng Justice for the goodness which is not there, the Good for the injustice that is there. Maybe we must ignore the truth that the chimera of crime puts on.

 

Say whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat!!

 

Don't ask.

 

dude put some spaces between paragraphs please, it makes it less annoying to read. (i know i dont use proper punctuation but most of my posts are short and i dont think it makes it harder to read them.)

i think you mean theistic religions vs athiestic religions?

i personally think that there is legitimacy in spirituality in the absesnce of a diety, i think it goes back to our human need to understand ourselves and the world around us. i have personally learned a great deal about myself through spirituality.

sam harris himself talks about his "favorite" religion alot, jainism, and how the more radically you are into jainism, the more peaceful you are, in sharp contrast to other religions that condone violence. also, i think its unethical, theistic or not, when religions or cults teach things that have been shown to be impossible like energy healing, auora reading, or prophesying the future.

so to summarize, i think its all cool untill you start making stuff up. if your making stuff up and people are believing it, its going to hinder us because of the way we will incorrectly percieve the world around us.

and lastly, i dont understand why you put christianity and catholicism in the same category as buddism or taoism, that just seems silly. one is just spirituality and one believes in a personal diety, they are vastly diffrent and theres alot of examples of christianity and catholicism hindering human development especially socially.

oh and the fact that the big bang was first proposed by a catholic preist, thats still a point for science, not religion.

 

The statement you're reacting to is: "How does the advance of science encroach on Buddhism, Taoism, or Hinduism? How, for that matter, does it encroach on mainline Protestant Christianity, or even Catholicism?" So it seems quite appropriate to include any relgions to which the point appled" theistic, atheistic, whatever--regardless of their great differences. And if people say that religion is a detriment to science, it also seems to be appropriate to bring up prominent scientists who are religious.

 

i guess in some specific points, science and religion can harmonize but there are more points, i belive, where they are at odds with each other.

what is interesting is how people will apply science or religion to solve certain problems. take for example world peace, a very complex subject which science and religion have alot to say about. there are points you can make about how science hinders world peace but theres alot of examples of how science can also help world peace through technological advancements. and the same can be said about religion, in some cases it causes conflicts which can lead to war, and in some cases religion can bring people together through its teachings.

so i guess the question "How does the advance of science encroach on Buddhism, Taoism, or Hinduism? How, for that matter, does it encroach on mainline Protestant Christianity, or even Catholicism?" really depends on the specific context.