"Dawkins and Pinker are jerks."

Jump to navigation Jump to search

I have to respectfully disagree on the "but everyone takes things on faith" trope. Label it whatever you like, I've used "faith" and "trust" there, but my attitude towards science and even less rigorous things like my relationships and attitude to the law is certainly not the same as what religion professes.

Scarlet A.pngpostate19:35, 12 February 2012

Again, *some* religions. Abrahamic religions, by and large. But they do not represent religions.

And while I respect that you disagree, and while maybe teh issue is semantics, the fact that I know nothing about ACTUAL physics, yet believe the univers is 13.7 million years old, is based only on the fact that some TV shows told me so. Until I can do the math, it is a matter of trust/faith, and not a matter of "logically understanding the facts, and analyzing them" the way people who are "pro rationality" like to describe themselves.

But now we are back at the same point we always are. Do you make a decision first, then justify it with ration, or use ration to make your decisions. and i think you and I have never really agreed on this point, and science has (so far) little to offer, though we will prove one of us right sooner or later, cause we are just learning so much more about the mind each day.

Pink mowse.pngGodotGrow a vagina19:42, 12 February 2012

i think you meant billion? :P

il'Dictator Mikal19:44, 12 February 2012
 

Which religions don't have you accept things on faith? I don't know much about Eastern religions, but I do know that you have to accept based on faith that karma exists, or cows are divine, or whatever kind of supernatural bullshit you want to claim exists. Religion, by my definition, is an ideology based on a claim of knowledge on the supposedly supernatural, so I don't see how you could have one without accepting things on faith.

F19:50, 12 February 2012

buddhism isnt really focused on the SN...

il'Dictator Mikal19:52, 12 February 2012