Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Jodie.Lynne

The superiority of one's beliefs

311 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

jmccr8
8 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Will, What do you mean by inequality must be eliminated? Do you mean we should all think the same or be eliminated?
 

 

Hi Sherarpy

 I think it means subject to a standard basically his standard. Okay I love women, the way they smell and how they respond  but I do not deny that all of us feel the same way about someone or some gender. Those feeling are valid and heart felt if I my use the term in a universal way. Love is love no barriers exist nor judgement or commitment implied we are friends period and I will stand by them

jmccr8

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
24 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Will, What do you mean by inequality must be eliminated? Do you mean we should all think the same or be eliminated?
 

Playing the persecution card in a circular fashion. :yes:

 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
3 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Often on these boards, we see an attitude of superiority, from both the believers and the non believers in religion, spirituality, or deity.

I see a lot of signs of smug satisfaction on the part of believers, with a strong dose of sympathy thrown in. 

And on the part of non-believers, I also see an intellectual smugness, being that those folk are 'smarter than the primitives'. ( yes, I have been guilty of this myself, but I am trying to be better)

 

For the record, I don't believe in any of the religions that man has concocted. Nor do I embrace 'spirituality', because it sounds just like religion, without the structure. Kind of like saying something isn't 'red', it's 'cinnamon'. Or "It's not a 'used car', it's 'pre-owned'." No offense is intended to anyone, just my own POV on the subject that changing the nomenclature, doesn't change the subject matter.

In my life, I really don't care what anyone believes, as long as it doesn't harm or impinge on others. If a person wants to believe that they are better than others, because of their faith, or their skin colour, or who they identify as, or who they love, then that is their prerogative. AS LONG AS... they do not try to impose those views on others. 

 

So my question is.....

Does you belief, or lack thereof, make you feel one up on those who think differently?

Not at all. Frustration maybe. Frustration at the delay caused by religion in our intellectual evolution as a species. We would be far more advanced by now without it.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
Just now, Hankenhunter said:

Not at all. Frustration maybe. Frustration at the delay caused by religion in our intellectual evolution as a species. We would be far more advanced by now without it.

Pure, unadulterated supposition. You are just guessing.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
3 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Pure, unadulterated supposition. You are just guessing.

I was replying to the op with my opinion based on history. If you want to debate it, open another thread.

Edited by Hankenhunter
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
2 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Pure, unadulterated supposition. You are just guessing.

Hi Habitat

 Yes and according to your

 supported reference why would anyone question that pray tell?

jmccr8

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
2 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Habitat

 Yes and according to your

 supported reference why would anyone question that pray tell?

jmccr8

I understand Sir Isaac Newton, a scientific luminary of the first order, was a very religious man. "Old mate" tells us that religion is a handicap to science. I reckon his next guess will be that Newton would have been so much more that luminary, sans the religious devotion. That would be an even bolder guess. More likely, Newton would have never emerged from obscurity, if he wasn't the man he was, in its totality.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
9 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Pure, unadulterated supposition. You are just guessing.

No that's the general consensus among many academics. Doctrine, dogma, End Times fear and false hope set us back thousands of years. 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
Just now, Habitat said:

I understand Sir Isaac Newton, a scientific luminary of the first order, was a very religious man. "Old mate" tells us that religion is a handicap to science. I reckon his next guess will be that Newton would have been so much more that luminary, sans the religious devotion. That would be an even bolder guess. More likely, Newton would have never emerged from obscurity, if he wasn't the man he was, in its totality.

He wasn't the rule. Just one man. 

Albertus Magnus was the same. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
2 minutes ago, Piney said:

He wasn't the rule. Just one man. 

far from being "just one man". We know how science "progressed" in the presence of a strongly religious culture, we certainly do not know how it might have progressed, in the absence of it. It is sheer guesswork.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
19 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

I was replying to the op with my opinion based on history. If you want to debate it, open another thread.

So what ? You said it "frustrates" you that science has been stymied by religion, that is just an idle assumption, completely unscientific, actually,  and if you don't like it being challenged, too bad for you !

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
5 minutes ago, Habitat said:

So what ? You said it "frustrates" you that science has been stymied by religion, that is just an idle assumption, completely unscientific, actually,  and if you don't like it being challenged, too bad for you !

Did the op ask for peer reviewed papers before replying? Like I said, open a thread to challenge me if your feeling pugnacious. Otherwise, stop bothering me. I'm not going to derail someone else's thread.

Edited by Hankenhunter
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
5 minutes ago, Habitat said:

far from being "just one man". We know how science "progressed" in the presence of a strongly religious culture, we certainly do not know how it might have progressed, in the absence of it. It is sheer guesswork.

:blink:

Let's see.....Athanasius burnt every Greek and Roman scientific writing he could get his hands on setting the Roman Empire back a few thousand years and the Renaissance was brought about by secular thinkers......... 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
15 minutes ago, Piney said:

No that's the general consensus among many academics. Doctrine, dogma, End Times fear and false hope set us back thousands of years. 

 

Oh, I think you are just guessing with that one. The realistic appraisal would be, we just don't have enough examples of a civilization without a strong religious culture to compare against. It is like saying if some famous author hadn't been a boozer, he'd have been a much better writer, when in fact it isn't possible to re-run history with the bloke taking the pledge, and sticking to it. He might have been flat-out writing a message on a post-it note, for all we know.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
2 minutes ago, Hankenhunter said:

Did the op ask for peer reviewed papers before replying? Like I said, open a thread to challenge me if your feeling pugnacious. Otherwise, stop bothering me. I'm not going to derail someone else's thread.

Nothing to do with pugnacious, but everything to do with you shutting down a critique of your statement.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
Just now, Habitat said:

Oh, I think you are just guessing with that one. The realistic appraisal would be, we just don't have enough examples of a civilization without a strong religious culture to compare against. It is like saying if some famous author hadn't been a boozer, he'd have been a much better writer, when in fact it isn't possible to re-run history with the bloke taking the pledge, and sticking to it. He might have been flat-out writing a message on a post-it note, for all we know.

The AE when the cult of Aten took over. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
2 minutes ago, Piney said:

:blink:

Let's see.....Athanasius burnt every Greek and Roman scientific writing he could get his hands on setting the Roman Empire back a few thousand years and the Renaissance was brought about by secular thinkers......... 

Science as we are influenced by it, is a product of Newton, more than any single other. No Newton, you would not even have been born.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

The till now... 

Quote
 
22 Jun 2012 · Turing isn't the only scientist to have been persecuted for his personal or professional beliefs or lifestyle
~
30 Nov 2016 · All of the examples I gave prove that the persecution of scientists all happened due to religious reasons. most .
 

~

And the list goes on and continues... 

~

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
18 minutes ago, Habitat said:

far from being "just one man". We know how science "progressed" in the presence of a strongly religious culture, we certainly do not know how it might have progressed, in the absence of it. It is sheer guesswork.

Hi Habitat

Shot point 

It started then and we are here now what do you think we have missed in the process?

jmccr8

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
1 minute ago, Habitat said:

Nothing to do with pugnacious, but everything to do with you shutting down a critique of your statement.

Sir Isaac was a scientist and very religious. For all that he wrote on religion,  he may as well have twiddled his thumbs for all the good his religeous writings did mankind. It was his scientific works that benefited mankind. Are next going trott out the universities and hospitals argument next? Saved you the trouble.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2016/04/how-christianity-retarded-modern-society-by-1500-years

Here's my arguments to you. Pretty comprehensive in my opinion.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
Just now, Habitat said:

Science as we are influenced by it, is a product of Newton, more than any single other. No Newton, you would not even have been born.

Did you forget about Asia? India prior to the Muslim Crusade against books?

He was only special to you Gaijin.  Not to my ethnic group.

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hankenhunter
8 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Nothing to do with pugnacious, but everything to do with you shutting down a critique of your statement.

Good luck with that.:tu:

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
1 minute ago, Hankenhunter said:

Good luck with that.:tu:

Congratulations Hank! Your now a member of "The Team".

@third_eye  has to give you 10 shots with a paddle and pour a bottle of sake over your head though. :yes:

  • Haha 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Good ol ' Sir Isaac was also a closet heretic... 

Quote

Newton also studied alchemy and religion. He wrote a forensic analysis of the Bible in an effort to decode divine prophecies. He held unorthodox religious views, rejecting the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. After his death, Newton’s heir, John Conduitt, the husband of his half-niece Catherine Barton, feared that one of the fathers of the Enlightenment would be revealed as an obsessive heretic. And so for hundreds of years few people saw his work. It was only in the 1960s that some of Newton’s papers were widely published...

~

~

Quote

~

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
7 minutes ago, third_eye said:

The till now... 

~

And the list goes on and continues... 

~

How ridiculous to saY Turing was persecuted because he was a scientist, it is all too obvious it was because of his homosexuality, like that non-scientist Oscar Wilde !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.