Why are the skeptics here?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Wow, it only took you 4 days to come up with that gem!

Time intervals are relative to the observer, don't you know? 😉

I don't spend all day reading posts on RHP forums; I respond when I see something - which may very well be four days after it was posted.

Originally posted by DragonFriend
I understand why the Christians are here discussing God, but why are the skeptics here? If I can speak generally, the thing skeptics dislike about Christians most is that we're unwilling to change the basis of our faith. So what do the skeptics hope to accomplish with these discussions?

DF

It would be nice if we could get you to see how irrational and foolish your faith is, and what an impediment it is upon the advancement of civilization.

But discussions in this forum must necessarily include critiques of faith as well as support of it. Not all discussions of spirituality need be positive ones.

Originally posted by rwingett
It would be nice if we could get you to see how irrational and foolish your faith is, and what an impediment it is upon the advancement of civilization.

It would be nice if people on both sides of the line treated each other with a minimum degree of civility and focused on the topic at hand as well.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It would be nice if people on both sides of the line treated each other with a minimum degree of civility and focused on the topic at hand as well.

You speak wisely, old man.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It would be nice if people on both sides of the line treated each other with a minimum degree of civility and focused on the topic at hand as well.

I do treat you with a minimum degree of civility.

Originally posted by DragonFriend
I understand why the Christians are here discussing God, but why are the skeptics here? If I can speak generally, the thing skeptics dislike about Christians most is that we're unwilling to change the basis of our faith. So what do the skeptics hope to accomplish with these discussions?

DF

Religion bashing is the sceptics's most favorite waste of time ..... after boasting about their rational, ideological and above all moral superiority of course. 😛


By the way, everything is fake about them except their arrogance ..... 😲 😛

Originally posted by rwingett
It would be nice if we could get you to see how irrational and foolish your faith is, and what an impediment it is upon the advancement of civilization.

But discussions in this forum must necessarily include critiques of faith as well as support of it. Not all discussions of spirituality need be positive ones.

Ahh, the altruism waifs like a fragrant offering to the heavens. Surely there is a place reserved for such selfless giving in the pantheon of the final resting place.

Logic reigns supreme, except of course, in wingnut's post. The advancement of civilization came about in the most profound manner immediately following the Church's return to doctrine, ala Luther. While much could be said about the religious cause of the Dark Ages, much more can be said about the return to doctrine, and its impact on what we call Western Civilization.

Don't be afraid of books.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Ahh, the altruism waifs like a fragrant offering to the heavens. Surely there is a place reserved for such selfless giving in the pantheon of the final resting place.

Logic reigns supreme, except of course, in wingnut's post. The advancement of civilization came about in the most profound manner immediately following the Church's return to doctrine, a ...[text shortened]... o doctrine, and its impact on what we call Western Civilization.

Don't be afraid of books.

The Enlightenment was responsible for finally pushing civilization out of the Dark Ages, where the Church would have been more than happy to keep it for all eternity. The Church has been a hindrance to every scientific advancement ever made. It was only by weakening the Church's stranglehold on the intellect of man that we were finally able to make some progress.

I've said it before, but if it had not been for the Enlightenment, Christianity would be very much like Islam is today. One can only hope that in another 500 years the Muslim world will have undergone their own similar Enlightenment and moved out of their own dark age.

The lesson is that theocracies make for poor government and for poor religion. The more a society is free from religious dogma, the better off it will be. But the converse is also true: the less a religion involves itself in the running of the state, the better off it will be as well.

Originally posted by rwingett
The Enlightenment was responsible for finally pushing civilization out of the Dark Ages, where the Church would have been more than happy to keep it for all eternity. The Church has been a hindrance to every scientific advancement ever made. It was only by weakening the Church's stranglehold on the intellect of man that we were finally able to make some pro ...[text shortened]... ess a religion involves itself in the running of the state, the better off it will be as well.

Would it surprise you to know that the Great Witch-hunt (which had a death-toll of around 10 times all the Inquisitions put together) happened during the Enlightenment and primarily in nations where the Reformation was at its strongest?

If you don't believe me - look it up.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Would it surprise you to know that the Great Witch-hunt (which had a death-toll of around 10 times all the Inquisitions put together) happened during the Enlightenment and primarily in nations where the Reformation was at its strongest?

If you don't believe me - look it up.

I have no intention of indulging your fantasy about how the Church was blameless for every calamity its legacy inspired. The Great Witch hunt was still caused by too little science and too much religion. Whether it was the Catholics or the Protestants is really of little interest to me. It was only when religion had been divested of governmental power that Inquisitions and Witch Hunts became a thing of the past.

Originally posted by rwingett
The Church has been a hindrance to every scientific advancement ever made.

This cannot be true.
I think building churches has improved architecture into something more complex, longer lasting and beautiful.
Also I think that by opposing a scientific thery (if you are wrong) can only help to strenghten it it will have to grow more complex and be more thought out to explain everything. If charles darwin publisehed the origon of the speces and everyone said "yea ok" we might not have put so much thought into it now.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0209/p17s01-stss.html

I'm sure there are other things people will bring up.

Originally posted by rwingett
I have no intention of indulging your fantasy about how the Church was blameless for every calamity its legacy inspired. The Great Witch hunt was still caused by too little science and too much religion. Whether it was the Catholics or the Protestants is really of little interest to me. It was only when religion had been divested of governmental power that Inquisitions and Witch Hunts became a thing of the past.

LOL. You really need to learn your history (and not just whatever Marxist-variant you're reading these days). When the witch-hunt was at its peak, Descartes and Newton were being lauded in philosophical and scientific societies and governments had broken off from Church control (if, indeed, they ever were - a great case can be made for the opposite).

Besides, if Inquisitions and Witch hunts were a thing of the past, then what was Sen. McCarthy all about? What is Gitmo Bay all about?

Originally posted by Will Everitt
This cannot be true.
I think building churches has improved architecture into something more complex, longer lasting and beautiful.
Also I think that by opposing a scientific thery (if you are wrong) can only help to strenghten it it will have to grow more complex and be more thought out to explain everything. If charles darwin publisehed the origon ...[text shortened]... nitor.com/2006/0209/p17s01-stss.html

I'm sure there are other things people will bring up.

If Rob is interested in the facts and not his prejudices, he may also want to check out the works of the Jesuit scientists:

http://libraries.luc.edu/about/exhibits/jesuits/

It's not for nothing that half the craters on the moon are named after Jesuits.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It's a bad habit - like smoking.

Actually, there’s a lot to be said for that. Maybe why I’m still here...

On the other hand, spiritual and theistic are not the same thing; spiritual and supernatural are not the same thing (remember bbarr ending my attempt to argue otherwise on the “strawman” thread?)...

On the other other hand, debating on here has led me to change my views considerably. I did not start out a “non-aligned, non-supernaturalist monist”—you can probably read something like Zen-Taoist there—nor did I go there easily, but by having my assumptions and habitual frames of reference thumped, and thumped again: I am stubborn. Also, articulate people whom I respect but with whom I now disagree (e.g., Christian theists) have over and over forced me to clarify my own thinking, jettison some long-held-dear beliefs, and leave behind the comfort of some of my waffling ways...

Then again, it may well be a bad habit, like smoking...

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If Rob is interested in the facts and not his prejudices, he may also want to check out the works of the Jesuit scientists:

http://libraries.luc.edu/about/exhibits/jesuits/

It's not for nothing that half the craters on the moon are named after Jesuits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_the_Jesuits