XPost: sci.psychology.psychotherapy, alt.consciousness, talk.origins
From: RaanOne@One.org
"Kermit" wrote in message
news:2b38d8c5.0409020948.460a359a@posting.google.com...
> "Raan" wrote in message
news:...
> > "Atman" wrote in message
> > news:9ht9j0dc6j99vm68iq8i7ifl99cqmu9fe2@4ax.com...
> > > On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 10:52:31 +0000 (UTC), "Raan"
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >So to reason and apply that reason by means of the self correcting
> > objective
> > > >methods of science is to have as dogmatic a faith as any religion is
that
> > > >right. And I suppose mathematics as it is applied to engineering is
just
> > an
> > > >occult magical system. You might want to reassess your view.
> > >
> > > Nope! Many of the belief systems, religious or otherwise, that are
> > > being denounced by Secular Humanism also claim to have scientific
> > > support or even scientific proof on their side. All to often people
> > > ignore data that does not fit there view point. This includes those
> > > who support Secular Humanism. The observer is effecting that which is
> > > being observed. The interpretation of scientific data is very
> > > subjective.
> > >
> > > Secular Humanism has received a bad name due to actions taken by
> > > Communist states under the banner of state sponsored Secular Humanism.
> > > Much like many religions receive a bad name due to the actions of
> > > extreme fundamentalists in their groups. The Communist state replaced
> > > God and all to often the state then decides that it's OK to execute,
> > > imprison, torture, or re-educate all people who express any
> > > religious or spiritual beliefs. Hundreds of millions died in Russia,
> > > China, Vietnam, and other Communists countries.
> > >
> > > Bottom line is that all dogma, fanaticism, fundamentalism, and
> > > extremism can be dangerous, even under the name of Secular Humanism.
> > >
> > > Agreeing to respect other people's right to hold and publicly express
> > > their beliefs, even those religious beliefs that you disagree with,
> > > has proved to be the only workable solution.
> > >
> >
> > And is universal tolerance tolerant of intolerance?
> > Beliefs are ignorance posing as knowledge.
> > The limitations of reason and science do not negate them.
> > Many think themselves reasonable that are not.
> > And many label themselves other than what they are.
> > My disagreement is with belief itself and none in particular.
> > These sentences may be out of order but there you have it.
>
> Raan, you have a powerful emotional response to the word "belief".
> Since many people use it properly, it would probably be best if you
> got over this, or you will not be able to have a rational conversation
> with a lot of folks, including those who share most of your ideas.
>
> We should no more surrender our use of the word "belief" just because
> some religious fanatics misuse it, then we should give up the words
> "theory" or "science".
>
> Kermit
To believe is to hold something to be true... without conclusive evidence.
I add that last part as an implication of the actual proper usage of the
word, because if there were conclusive evidence one would certainly hold it
to be true but one would not need to claim any belief it since it has been
factually proven. I do not say for example that I believe my name is Raan,
because that is a given and established fact. Moreover one may adopt a view
as workable without therefore holding it as being true in actuality and
therefore would not be believing it. As to why you think it should follow
that I should give up the words "theory" or :science" I don't see how that
follows at all. Since you have fixated on what you construe as my apparent
emotional reaction to the word "belief" does this mean you have not
considered the basis for my objection to belief itself?
--
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
