Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatOldRedMagic
By dilution (a very hastily-chosen word) I meant to convey the practical effect that catholic dogma was, to an extent at least (please don't think I mean totally) relaxed; in the new protestant countries there were no more inquisitions and burnings; it was possible to postulate what are today accepted scientific facts without risking your life (Copernicus and the heliocentric universe for example) and bibles in vernacular languages were not prohibited.
|
My understanding of the Reformation is that it is a return to the original faith rather than a dilution of that faith. But you are right, it is a dilution of the Catholic faith.
Quote:
|
Now, let us be clear about atheism and dogma; I've heard this accusation many times, and to refute it is simple. There is nothing dogmatic in refuting that which is itself dogmatic.
|
But is that atheism? No, sometimes (and I think this is a key word) atheists are as dogmatic as some theists. Must theism be necessarily dogmatic?
Quote:
|
That which offers no evidence for its postulation (the existance of a god in this case) requires none for its refutation.
|
That quote brings us back to square one. So you think no one should offer any evidence? I'm sure you don't mean this (and will begin to cite scientific discoveries that go against religious books), but has science actually produced evidence for or against a God of any sort? Or are you just a-Judeo-Christian-theist?
Quote:
|
What I AM angry about is intolerance and repression in all forms, but especially so when its rationale is nothing more than discredited mediaeval scripture.
|
So you're intolerant of intolerance, especially when it is justified by "discredited" scripture? What about other kinds of intolerance, like those justified by pseudo-science? Or intolerance justified by the rule of law?
Quote:
|
If there is no cosmic, sentient and omnipotent agency governing the world, then all of these people - prophets, messiahs, what you like - were charlatans. Dangerous charlatans what is more. Cosmic agencies and my intellect, I'm afraid I have to admit, just don't rub along.
|
Again, I think charlatan is a strong word. People who vied for brotherly love and justice and peace? They're all charlatans...?
Here's why I sense the same bias that the other extreme also has. Is there a chance that some of these "prophets" might actually be good people who were mistaken?
Quote:
|
We are still in the infancy of our species. In the fullness of time we'll ditch this primitive god-security blanket and come to our senses.
|
I'm afraid this statement doesn't offer any proof for what you believe. Rather, its looking down on what others believe simply because it doesn't "rub along" with your intellect. If anything, I don't think it actually paints you as much of a tolerant soul.
I also hope we can clear up whether you don't believe in just the Judeo-Christian and Islamic "God" or whether no supernatural being exists beyond our comprehension at all.